Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read a Third time upon Thursday.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (STANSTED) BILL (By Order)

Considered; to be read the Third time.

YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

PRISONS

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before the House a Return of the Report of an Inquiry by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons into the escape of Alan Richard Knowlden from St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington on 8th April 1986.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

British Coal

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss investment in the industry.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I have regular meetings with the chairman of British coal to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

Mr. Dorman: Is the Secretary of State aware that British Coal's borings off the north-east coast have led to the discovery of millions of tonnes of new coal reserves? As north-east pits already go miles underneath the sea, will the Secretary of State do all that he can with the chairman of British Coal to ensure that the new reserves are exploited and so safeguard the jobs of thousands of north-east miners, especially in an area where there is no alternative employment?

Mr. Walker: I know that the Coal Board's policy is to invest heavily in areas where good seams of coal are discovered and, therefore, that it will be tapping those areas. As I have said, it is anticipating about £2 billion worth of new investment in the coal industry over the next three years. I am sure that it will carefully consider prospects in the north-east.

Mr. Fallon: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the north-east coalfield is now profitable for the first time in years? Does he look forward to the day when those who work for British Coal have the same opportunity to invest in their own industry as those who work for British Gas? If he sees Arthur, will he tell him?

Mr. Walker: Productivity in the north-east is at an all-time high and I welcome that. As I have told the House, there are no plans for the privatisation of the coal industry at present—

Mr. Janner: At present?

Mr. Walker: That is so because substantial losses are being made. That is what I have always said to the House. If there comes a time when the miners can participate more directly, I shall be delighted.

Mr. Mason: On future investment, what is the Secretary of State's view about the introduction of the pit-by-pit productivity schemes, with all the inherent concerns about safety in the mines? What will be the total investment involved if it is extended throughout all the coalfields?

Mr. Walker: I know of no such scheme.

Mr. Marlow: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that one way to secure increasing investment in the pits is to offer groups of miners the right to lease their mines, to hire their own management and, as a co-operative, to raise money on the open market, thereby involving themselves directly in their own jobs?

Mr. Walker: I am pleased to say that the Coal Board has given a direct interest to miners through the various productivity incentive schemes. I must point out that one of the complications for the coal industry is that one customer takes the majority of coal in this country and has a dominating position. Therefore, the marketing of coal has to be carefully organised.

Mr. Orme: When discussing investment, did the Secretary of State raise the serious exodus from the mining industry? I am sure that he will agree that investment means money not only for machinery and development but for recruitment and training? Does he agree that a serious situation will arise next year if that exodus continues at its present alarming rate?

Mr. Walker: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, with his great interest in this topic, a major rationalisation of the industry will have taken place by March next year and the results are—I think he will agree—staggering. In the week before last, for example, coal production in this country was 2 million tonnes in one week, which is similar to what it was before any dispute, with a third fewer people employed. I think that rationalisation and improved productivity have proved to be correct and very much in the industry's interest. Of course, training and recruitment are important for the furture.

Oil Trade Revenue

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what overall surplus or deficit accrued to the United Kingdom in its oil trade revenue for the last two years for which figures are available.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): The monthly review of external trade statistics shows a surplus of £6·9 billion in 1984, £8·2 billion in 1985 and £3·55 billion to October 1986.

Mr. Janner: How long does the Minister expect the United Kingdom to remain in surplus, and how long will our reserves last? During the time that the Government remain in power, which we hope will be very brief, will they continue to squander these assets in the disgraceful way that they have done so far?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We expect to remain self-sufficient well into the 1990s. We are still discovering new reserves, and we reckon that we shall continue to do so for many decades to come.

Mr. Bruce: Does the Minister acknowledge that the present drive by OPEC to secure a stable oil price of around $18 is in the United Kingdom's interests and that the British Government could make a useful contribution towards achieving that stability, not least because it would restore confidence in the North sea oil industry and maintain the drive towards energy efficiency?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman supports the policy of production control and full co-operation with OPEC, I should be interested to know whether that policy is supported by his party and the alliance. If the hon. Gentleman is serious about it, he ought also to spell out how he envisages that policy being applied on the United Kingdom side of the North sea. He ought also to acknowledge that if production were to be cut, jobs would be lost.

Mr. Rowlands: Does the Minister accept that, although there is an £8 billion oil surplus, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now forecasting a deficit of nearly £8 billion in manufactured goods next year? Will he confirm that since 1979 this Government have collected £50 billion in direct taxation from the North sea? If those figures are taken together, is not my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) right when he says that the Government have squandered the great and marvellous opportunities provided by North sea oil?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Once again the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. Compared with the Government of which he was a member, this Government's policies and the programmes that they are carrying through mean that this country is now paying its way in the world.

Power Supply Industry

Mr. Eastham: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when the Minister of State last met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to discuss the question of the power supply industry.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman regularly and discuss a wide range of issues.

Mr. Eastham: Has the Minister read the reports that prophesy a power crisis in the 1990s, which will lead to possible blackouts? I remind the Minister that his Government promised that one order each year would be placed for a new power station. Although this Government have been in office for nearly eight years, not a single order has been placed for a new power station.

Energy from France is being imported to two power stations, yet the NEI and GEC are making people redundant because they have no orders. What does the Minister intend to do about it?

Mr. Goodlad: The Government fully appreciate the importance of maintaining the capability of the industry when home orders are lacking. Considerable aid and support have been provided to the industry to win overseas contracts to help maintain its capability. However, ordering is essentially a matter for the electricity supply industry. The only current application for consent to construct a station is that for Sizewell B. Recently I met representatives of GEC and NEI, and I have passed on their representations to the CEGB.

Dr. Michael Clark: When my hon. Friend met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, did he discuss with him any contingency plans that would be necessary if a decision were taken not to have a family of pressurised water reactors in this country? If they were implemented, what would those contingency plans mean in terms of power supply in this country?

Mr. Goodlad: No, Sir. Discussion of such matters must await my right hon. Friend's decision on the Sizewell B inquiry.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: When is that likely to be?

Mr. Goodlad: Next year.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Can my hon. Friend confirm, or deny, the reports in the weekend press that plans are going ahead for coal-fired power stations on the Channel coast? Will he further confirm, or deny, that those plans include two power stations in south Hampshire, on the edge of the New Forest? Would it not be unusual to build coal-fired power stations so near to the largest oil refinery in Britain and the sixth largest in the world?

Mr. Goodlad: I understand that the CEGB is considering the possibility of building new coal-fired power stations, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received no applications to construct new power stations, apart from that for Sizewell B. The CEGB has identified a number of possible sites for future coal-fired power stations, but has made no firm decisions about where they might be sited.

Mr. James Lamond: Is the Minister aware that the design and building of a power station involves a specialised team, including many hundreds of members of my trade union, the Technical, Administrative and Supervisory Section of the Engineering Union, in the design part of that work? Will he bear in mind that the dearth of orders over the past seven years has led to the real danger of those specialised teams being broken up and not being available when the Government decide that another power station is needed?

Mr. Goodlad: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which is why I said that the Government have helped the power plant industry to maintain its capability by providing aid and support to win overseas contracts.

Mr. Hickmet: Is my hon. Friend aware that the chairman of the CEGB has stated that to abandon a nuclear power programme in Britain would mean an increase of up to 50 per cent. in electricity prices, that continuity of supply could not be guaranteed, that far


from being competitive British industry would be hampered, and that for the British Steel Corporation, with an electricity bill of £100 million per year, the consequences of pursuing policies proposed by the Opposition would, frankly, be disastrous?

Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is right.

Mr. Orme: Is the Minister aware that his reply about the Sizewell report is completely unsatisfactory? We understand that part of that report has been given to the Secretary of State. The House and country are entitled to see and debate that report at the earliest opportunity. When will we see it?

Mr. Goodlad: As my right hon. Friend has told the House, Sir Frank Layfield has delivered the bulk of his report, but my right hon. Friend can make a decision only on the full report. However, he intends to reach his decision as quickly as possible when he has the full report. He is legally obliged to have that full report before making his decision. The timing is a matter for the inspector. My right hon. Friend expects to receive the remaining sections of the report by the middle of January.

Mr. Dickens: To ensure that industry has the power that it requires, and to make sure that the lights keep burning at home, did my hon. Friend impress upon the chairman of the CEGB that the three options of coal, oil and nuclear power are essential, and that research into and development of wave, solar and wind power are also required?

Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is correct. A mix of sources is important.

Coal Imports

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will initiate discussions with the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board and British Coal with a view to reducing coal imports; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): Coal imports by the CEGB are a commercial matter for the board. I understand that as part of the agreement announced last June the CEGB has undertaken to purchase 95 per cent. of its annual coal burn from British Coal. In line with this agreement the CEGB expects to continue to limit the amount of coal that it imports.

Mr. Eadie: The Minister must be aware that nearly 5 million tonnes of coking coal, and nearly 500,000 tonnes of anthracite, were imported in the first nine months of this year. He must also be aware of the impact that that will have on Britain's balance of payments and that such a scale of imports will inevitably mean a loss of jobs in our coal industry. Will the Minister give us other than a complacent reply and tell us what the Government will do?

Mr Hunt: The hon. Gentleman should know that the United Kingdom cannot do without imports in the foreseeable future because of the demand for special quality coking coal by the steel industry and because of demand for anthracite in excess of what can be supplied by British Coal.
On general policy, in 1979, when we inherited responsibility from the Government in which the hon. Gentleman had special responsibility for coal, the United Kingdom was a net importer of 2 million tonnes of coal.

In 1983 the United Kingdom was a net exporter of 2 million tonnes, but the strike destroyed that position. We are not at all complacent, but the hon. Gentleman seems to have been before he left power.

Mr. Rost: Does my hon. Friend agree that if we had an efficient and competitive coal industry we would not need to import because we would be exporting to the huge market over the Channel in Europe?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend is right. The best protection against imports for the United Kingdom coal industry lies in the industry achieving full production at prices which are competitive in the world market. The House should praise the efforts of men and management for achieving that.

Mr. Mason: What tonnage of South African coal is still coming into Britain, and when will it cease?

Mr. Hunt: The right hon. Gentleman should know that the CEGB does not import coal from South Africa.

Severn Barrage

Mr. Stern: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce the proposed route or alternative proposed routes of the electricity transmission line which would be necessary to link the proposed Severn barrage with the national grid.

Mr. David Hunt: If a Severn barrage were to be constructed, reinforcement of the Central Electricity Generating Board transmission system would be required. Actual requirements will need much more detailed study and the routeing and extent would depend on other developments before the time of installation of a barrage.

Mr. Stern: As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, the existing main treansmission line passes close to homes, factories, offices and warehouses, through Avonmouth in my constituency. If constructed, the Severn barrage would require a much strengthened transmission line. My hon. Friend will realise that there is considerable worry in Avonmouth about the potential effects of that more powerful transmission line. In the light of that, will he do what he can to at least make an announcement at the earliest possible date?

Mr. Hunt: I recognise that my hon. Friend is voicing anxieties on behalf of his constituents. I hope he will recognise that the main objective of the programme, which is supported by the Department, the CEGB and the Severn Tidal Power Group is to reduce uncertainty to the point where it will be possible to make decisions about whether to plan for construction. I shall, of course, bring his remarks to the attention of the CEGB.

Coal-Fired Power Stations

Mr. Orme: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to discuss the ordering of new coal-fired capacity.

Mr. Peter Walker: I meet the chairman regularly and we discuss a wide range of issues.

Mr. Orme: Did the Secretary of State discuss the urgent need to order two new coal-fired stations? As hon. Members on both sides have said, there is some worry


about this. I recently met representatives from NEI and GEC. We are aware that the CEGB is anxious to go ahead with such orders. When will the Secretary of State give the go-ahead?

Mr. Walker: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no lack of go-ahead on my part, because I cannot give the go-ahead or make a decision until an application is made. I have received no application from the CEGB for any power station other than Sizewell B. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that if I do receive applications they will be quickly and carefully considered.

Mr. Hannam: When my right hon. Friend is notified of any proposed coal-fired stations, will he try to ensure that the best use is made of generated heat by utilising combined heat and power?

Mr. Walker: Yes. The prospect of combined heat and power should be looked at in connection with any power station.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Secretary of State was in the House last week during Trade and Industry questions and will have heard what was said then about the need to secure a base domestic work load for the power plant industry so that it can compete in export markets. What discussions about these matters does he have with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?

Mr. Walker: We work closely together on a whole range of areas. For example, the Department of Trade and Industry has done a great deal in assisting the acquisition of export orders when little has been going on in the home market. Likewise, my Department has helped in export drives and Ministers have gone out to help with that. Only last week I had a meeting with the chief executive of NEI to discuss problems. There is a close liaison.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the record outputs per man shift from Britain's coalfields deserve an announcement before Christmas about two new coal-fired power stations in Nottinghamshire?

Mr. Walker: I shall have to wait for applications for power stations before I can make any announcement.

Mr. Dormand: Will the Secretary of State see whether he can get some firm information on the rumours referred to by his hon. Friend some time ago about the possible building of coal-fired power stations at deep water ports on the south coast? If those rumours are right, is it not obvious that the CEGB has in mind importing yet more coal?

Mr. Walker: I gather that a whole range of sites have been considered all over Britain. I genuinely do not know which of those sites, if any, the CEGB favours. When it makes an application, I shall consider it.

Energy Efficiency Conference, Birmingham

Mr. Patrick Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the energy efficiency conference in Birmingham.

Mr. Peter Walker: The tenth national energy management conference and exhibition was an outstanding success, the largest event of its type ever held in this country, or, as far as I know, in western Europe.

Mr. Thompson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, particularly in Energy Efficiency Year. Does he agree that it is particularly important now that homes, particularly the homes of the elderly, are well insulated and energy efficient? Will he join me in commending the work of the community insulation project, and will he speak to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to find out whether all local authorities have taken up all the moneys available to advance this worthwhile project?

Mr. Walker: There has been an enormous increase in these projects during the year. About 5,000 people who would otherwise have been unemployed have been working on the projects this year. By the end of the year, about 230,000 homes of elderly people and those on low incomes will have been insulated, and about 100,000 of those will have been done this year. I am glad to say that the number of groups being organised is being substantially increased.

Mr. Allen McKay: The Secretary of State has made a good statement about the insulation of homes. Will he talk to the Secretary of State for Social Services to ensure that the Bill he will be introducing does not stop these community projects?

Mr. Walker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that in my talks with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services I have found him keen and enthusiastic. I am sure that he will collaborate in every way.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is my right hon. Friend able to report that the local authorities were strongly lobbied at the Birmingham conference to set up their own energy cost efficiency departments? Can he give some guidance to elderly people who can be taken advantage of by some of the shoddy work that a few of the cowboy companies offer?

Mr. Walker: Yes, such people should seek advice. The local authorities' management advisory service has suggested that more than £100 million a year can be saved by applying the best management techniques to local authorities.

Mr. Rowlands: Despite the figures quoted by the Secretary of State, is he aware that 5 million dwellings have no loft insulation, and that 9 million households have no effective central heating? Do not the figures show the need for a more comprehensive and widespread energy efficiency programme than the one that we have?

Mr. Walker: With respect, the hon. Gentleman has the figures wrong. The figures given in an answer the other day related not to any loft insulation but to loft insulation to a particular depth. About 87 per cent. of homes have loft insulation.

British Coal

Mr. Powley: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the latest productivity in British Coal.

Mr. David Hunt: For the week ending 29 November, average revenue output per man shift was 3·64 tonnes, the eighth time the record has been broken in 10 weeks. This continued improvement shows the growing confidence of miners in the future of this great industry.

Mr. Powley: Does not British Coal deserve the heartfelt congratulations of the House and the country for the productivity improvements that it has achieved, which have resulted in a much more economic price for coal and more coal being delivered—which will help inflation and old-age pensioners during a severe winter? Would my hon. Friend care to speculate whether these improvements would have been achieved under an alternative Government with the support that the Labour party gave to the National Union of Mineworkers, which inhibited the efficiencies that have taken place?

Mr. Hunt: These tremendous efforts by the miners and management are good news for the consumer, the industry and the country. Weekly output per shift is an impressive 49 per cent. higher than the average in 1983–84, the year before the strike.

Mr. Skinner: As the Minister is praising a few miners for having achieved this extra productivity, and as he refers to figures such as the 49 per cent. increase, will he follow up his words with action and recommend to British Coal that it should consider a proper pay increase for the miners to reward them for this productivity—not on the bonus scheme, but on the flat rate of pay in a similar fashion to the Government's reward to the top generals and top civil servants? If it does that, the miners will be rewarded for their extra efforts.

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman should take some time to reflect on what he has said. The result of these magnificent efforts, as the "New Earnings Survey" shows, is that miners have once again been restored to the top of the pay league, and long may that remain their position.

Mr. Forth: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, notwithstanding this impressive increase in productivity, obtaining energy from coal and oil involves a much higher proven rate of accidents and fatalities than nuclear power? Will he bear this much in mind when considering the next stage of development of Britain's energy-producing industries?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend draws a comparison between the coal industry and nuclear power. Safety is paramount among men and management in our great coal industry and, fortunately, the safety record is improving. As my hon. Friend observes, however, there is still some way to go.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: In congratulating the management and workers in the mining industry on achieving these targets, may I ask whether the Minister agrees that the best way to add good news to our congratulations is by ordering further coal-fired power stations? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there is no reason why that should not be done in advance of the decision on Sizewell?

Mr. Hunt: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman has already heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State respond to that question. It is only by reducing costs and winning markets that the coal industry can build a secure future and protect long-term employment.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Does my hon. Friend feel that this growing confidence is undermined by the deplorable conduct of Opposition Members, who have sat silent and rooted to their seats while the Coal Industry Bill has been considered in Committee, thus showing a deplorable attitude to British miners?

Mr. Hunt: I was sad that the official Opposition should have chosen to remain silent on clauses that are vital for the industry's future and for democracy in the trade union movement.

British Gas

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the public response to the privatisation of British Gas.

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many individuals have purchased shares in British Gas; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the results of the public issue of shares in British Gas plc.

Mr. Peter Walker: I am delighted at the public response to the British Gas sale. More than 5 million people have applied to become shareholders in British Gas and more than 2 million people became shareholders for the first time.

Mr. Rost: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the 2 million first-time investors who are the result of the sale of British Gas means that there are at least 9 million investors now compared with 2 million in 1979? Is this not a tremendous achievement, there being as many investors now as there are members of trade unions? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that criticisms of the cost of the privatisation are thoroughly unfounded as the cost of the issue was about 2 per cent. of the proceeds, which is well below the average cost of any new issue that is launched on the stock exchange?

Mr. Walker: I confirm what my hon. Friend asked in the latter part of his supplementary question. The sum spent in informing the public of the details and communicating with them was relatively small compared with the remarkable result that was achieved. There has been a remarkable change since 1979, when on average one home in 12 owned a share. More than two homes in five own shares now, and I hope that soon the majority of homes will own them.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that under nationalisation the British public neither owned nor felt that they owned British Gas in any way? Do we not now have genuine public ownership of this great and important industry?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. It is important to realise that now, for the frst time, 99 per cent. of the employees of British Gas have a share in their own industry.

Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with the attractions of this investment and the concept and principle of share owning in general, the public are manifestly not selling immediately after an issue? They are holding on to their shares instead. They understand the idea of mass share ownership and are enthusiastic about it.

Mr. Walker: The great majority of people who bought British Telecom shares are still shareholders. I am sure that that will be true of British Gas shareholders in several years' time.

Mr. Donald Stewart: In view of the insider dealing scandals on both sides of the Alantic and the drop in


profits of British Airways, which is the next industry to be privatised, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, instead of trying to widen share ownership, the Government should be advising people that dabbling in shares could damage their financial health?

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman's party, the Scottish National party, has been totally against privatisation and deeply deplores the millions of people who have taken advantage of it.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, following the privatisation of Britoil, which left a substantial body of stock with the underwriters, the British Gas stock seems to have been launched at about the right level to ensure a fair price for the British people and a reasonable return for small investors?

Mr. Walker: The flotation went well. Basically, 64 per cent. of the shares went to individual members of the British public and 24 per cent. went to British institutions. The fact that 99 per cent. of employees have equity in the business shows that it was the right thing to do.

Mr. Bruce: Does the Minister acknowledge that, given the amount of hype involved in promoting British Gas, there was some resentment among people who did not have an opportunity to be customers of British Gas—such as people living in Northern Ireland, rural areas and some urban areas—because they were excluded from the premium allocation of shares? Was that not an unfair allocation of an asset that belonged to all the people before it was privatised?

Mr. Walker: I watched with interest the position of the alliance on this matter. I hope the country will realise that the alliance was totally opposed to privatisation. I hope that the 2 million gas customers who were guaranteed an allocation and obtained it will notice that the alliance was against them, too.

Mr. Orme: Does the Secretary of State say that, out of the 16 million gas consmers, 2 million have purchased shares? Does that not mean that he has created two classes of ownership and that some of the poorest consumers not only do not have shares but will not benefit from any reduction in prices?

Mr. Walker: The poorest consumers who have no shares are unlike those consumers who, at the time of the previous Government, had about a 20-odd per cent. increase in gas prices to help the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Radioactive Waste

Mr. Meadowcroft: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if the Central Electricity Generating Board has made financial provision in its reserves to cover the expected costs of long-term storage or disposal of radioactive waste; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Goodlad: At 31 March 1986 the provision made by the Central Electricity Generating Board for the cost of nuclear waste treatment, storage and disposal, totalled approximately £500 million. The charge to the board's profit and loss account in 1985–86 amounted to some £70 million.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Is it not the case that there is no provision for compensation payments for the purchasers

of private property around the proposed sites for the dumping of low-level nuclear waste? Will the Minister state what additional costs would be required for such provision?

Mr. Goodlad: The costs of nuclear waste management represent about 0·03p per unit. As a proportion of the overall price paid by consumers in England and Wales, those costs represent less than 1 per cent. of the total price of electricity. I shall examine the point raised by the hon. Gentleman and shall write to him.

British Gas

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the recent flotation of British Gas.

Mr. Peter Walker: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost).

Mr. Chapman: I have hurried back from abroad to ask this question only to find that it has already been answered. May I say to my right hon. Friend that the flotation of British Gas has been an undoubted success, and that many people look to the Governmeent to see further opportunities for similar flotations?

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for discovering Sid on the beaches of Barbados, and note the speed with which he returned. The flotation has been a widespread success and has given people the opportunity to participate in this important industry.

Mr. Skinner: Does the Secretary of State expect the flotation of British Gas to be more successful in the long term than Slater Walker?

Mr. Walker: Yes, so long as I remain Minister.

Chernobyl

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about his visit to Chernobyl.

Mr. Goodlad: My right hon. Friend will be visiting the USSR from 16 to 18 December at the invitiation of the Soviet Government. In the course of the visit he will visit Chernobyl.

Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend and wish my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State an interesting and enjoyable visit. Will my hon. Friend confirm that those of us who listen to the advice that we receive about learning the lessons of Chernobyl have learnt, first, that the Russians intend to get that station back into operation at the earliest opportunity and, secondly, that unilateral abrogation of nuclear power is not on their agenda?

Mr. Goodlad: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

National Railway Museum

Mr. Adley: asked the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement following his recent visit to the National Railway Museum.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I was pleased to be able to visit the National Railway Museum on 27 November and to meet the keeper and some of his


staff. The museum is a marvellous, living, record of the achievements of the British railway industry, in a city that boasts a variety of excellent museums, both public and independent.

Mr. Adley: I shall switch quickly from nuclear to steam power. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the size of the exhibits at York and the space that they need puts that museum in a different position from museums which, for instance, hang pictures on walls? Museums such as the Science Museum and the NRM need not only more space but more facilities to carry out their job properly. As the working locomotives at York are seen by many thousands of people far beyond York, will my right hon. Friend bear all those things in mind when the museum's allocation of funds is considered?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that the whole House knows of his interest in this subject and, indeed, of the role that he plays. Another important aspect is that we are now seeing the development of the national museums and galleries at stations outside London. The NRM at York is one example. The National Museum of Film, Photography and Television in Bradford is another.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is the Minister aware that Stockton borough council is considering a proposition to open a transport museum on a site on the line of the old Stockton-Darlington railway? Will he encourage co-operation by the nearby National Railway Museum at York with Stockton borough council in bringing that to fruition?

Mr. Luce: That is only partly on my patch, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's points to the attention of the Science Museum.

Sponsorship

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the progress of encouraging business sponsorship of the arts.

Mr. Luce: Business sponsorship of the arts continues to increase. Under the Government's business sponsorship incentive scheme a total of £10·7 million new money for the arts has been raised and over 370 businesses have sponsored the arts for the first time.

Mr. Chapman: I welcome very much the initiatives taken by the Government, including the business sponsorship incentive scheme and tax relief on one-year deeds of covenant. Does my right hon. Friend agree that £10 million, although welcome, is a relatively small amount, and that the potential for much greater sponsorship is very great? Will he keep those initiatives open and make sure that many more businesses are made aware of the tax advantages and opportunities that they have?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's continuing interest in the problem and the support that he gives to sponsorship. He is right that, although the business sponsorship incentive scheme has allowed 370 new businesses to sponsor, there is scope for a much larger number of businesses to sponsor. This is the time to get across, nationally and in our constituencies, the fact that the scheme exists and that a wide range of tax incentives and reliefs are available to businesses, so that they can give their support to the arts.

Mr. Heffer: No one is opposed to business interests giving more support and assistance to the arts. However, as one who was on an arts committee in my city for many years and who learnt that business interests were not usually very interested in helping the arts, I ask this question: is it not clear that the only way forward is for the Government and the local authorities to give every support possible so that the arts can flourish on a public basis?

Mr. Luce: Only recently I presented an award under the business sponsorship incentive scheme to a firm which had given solid support in Liverpool last year. I am pleased to have been able to do that. I hope that more firms will do the same. We should view the arts, not in a very narrow sense, but as part of a broad strategy whereby the public sector, the taxpayer and the ratepayer; through the local authorities, and, above all, the private sector, through businesses and private individuals, in partnership give their support to the arts. That is how I see sponsorship developing.

Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend take time during what I hope will be an enjoyable recess to write to all chambers of commerce drawing their attention to the schemes available for business sponsorship of the arts? Will he also write a special note to Sid telling him what British Gas might be able to do?

Mr. Luce: I am not sure about which Sid my hon. Friend is talking. I have written to 500 managing directors of the top firms, drawing their attention to the range of tax incentives available for giving to charitable bodies, and I hope that that will help. I shall certainly bear in mind the suggestion about chambers of commerce.

Mr. Freud: Will the Minister consider providing some incentive to American theatregoers, who have such deep affection for the British theatre, so that they can contribute to theatre sponsorship and get some contribution from the Government?

Mr. Luce: The best contribution that American tourists can make is by coming here and going to the theatre. I hope that I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly.

Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, for some years, local business in my area sponsored concerts for pensioners, at my request, as a post-Christmas activity for them? Those concerts were always held in a public hall, which was loaned by Ealing Council at no charge. The new Ealing Labour council is now charging for the hire of the hall, but business has come to my aid and is putting up the money for pensioners—many of whom are poor and disabled—something which the Ealing Labour council refuses to do.

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that matter to my attention. That is yet another illustration of what businesses can do to support the arts. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his efforts.

Mr. Buchan: Does the Minister stick by his proposition that all future expansion or development must come from private sources, as he has repeated three times in the past 12 months? Is that still his position? Will that not force arts directors and administrators into becoming fund raisers? Is not the main consequence a collapse in basic public funding? For example, does the right hon. Gentleman defend the situation in which he announced on Friday last


week a standstill in cash terms, and therefore a cut in the amount of money going to national museums and galleries, which meant that the National Gallery, if faced in the past fortnight with the cost of purchasing a Manet or Rembrandt in the salerooms, could not have afforded even one third of the canvas space?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman looks at the arts in a very narrow sense and appears not to know what is going on in the arts. There is an increase in attendance at theatres and in the number of arts centres. I have always made it plain that the Government's commitment is to keep up our support for the arts, but that our broad strategy is to fuel expansion of the arts by encouraging the private sector to play a much more prominent role.

Arts Council Grant

Mr. Meadowcroft: asked the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received on the Arts Council grant for the forthcoming year.

Mr. Luce: I have received a number of representations. The basic grant has been increased by 3·5 per cent. together with an increase of £3 million in the sum to compensate for abolition of the Greater London council and metropolitan county councils. In addition, I look to development in the arts through an increasing emphasis on plural funding.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Minister aware that there is concern among some of the major companies, such as Opera North, that if the Arts Council grant increase is limited to the 3·5 per cent. that has been announced, and if it is spread equally over the country, it will take no account of the problems that are faced in raising business sponsorship in different parts of the country? It is not in our nature to whinge, but is it not possible for the Minister to consider assisting such things as Outreach to new possible operagoers and to ethnic minorities separately rather than having it lumped in with the general Arts Council grant?

Mr. Luce: I have great admiration for the work of Opera North. Its budget is a matter for the Arts Council to settle, but the increase of 3·5 per cent. is broadly in line with expected inflation for next year. That is in line with the undertaking that we would keep up our support for the arts. It is a matter of partnership and not just central Government funding. Local authorities and the private sector should play a prominent role as well.

Sir David Price: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that it is absolutely essential to retain the strategy of "Glory of the Garden" in Arts Council funding—that the provinces get more of a fair share than they have hitherto? It is not enough to go on supporting the prima donna companies in London without giving adequate support to the many provincial companies which have been underfunded.

Mr. Luce: I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend. It fits in with the strategy that arts should be available to people in all parts of the country, not just in cities and other selected parts. I therefore strongly support the Art Council's policy, which is to support "Glory of the Garden".

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minster aware that he is generally regarded in the arts world as one who has

completely betrayed the arts by his total failure to fight the arts corner in terms of public expenditure and that what he has asked the Arts Council to do next year is to administer a real cut in the money from the Government?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman, with the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), said last year that the whole of the arts world was coming to an end and that a whole lot of institutions would close down. In view of that, I am not prepared to take any judgment from him. If he regards an increase of 5·5 per cent. in the overall arts budget, which is in line with the increase in public expenditure, as a failure, he had better think again.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Civil Servants (Court Appearances)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what terms and conditions of service apply to civil servants giving evidence in courts abroad on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): The normal arrangements for civil servants on duty visits abroad apply in these circumstances.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the right hon. Gentleman quarrel with £120,000 a day as the cost of that action in the New South Wales court? If he does not accept that figure, will he give his own figure, or the total cost to date, regardless of the judgment?

Mr. Luce: I am not answerable for the court case that is going on in Australia. Matters of security are for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but I think that she said in an answer not too long ago that, since the court case has not finished, we cannot give a precise figure. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman ought to be able to wait.

Sir John Page: Are any special arrangements made when civil servants give evidence which might last quite a long time at the Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg?

Mr. Luce: I am afraid that, without notice, I cannot answer that question directly, but I shall try to give my hon. Friend an answer by letter.

Dr. McDonald: Does the Minister agree that the Minister who is chiefly responsible for the Civil Service—the Prime Minister—should, in view of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, make a formal apology to the Australian courts because of the way in which Sir Robert Armstrong, the head of the Home Civil Service, has been obliged to mislead the courts there at the Government's behest?

Mr. Luce: I find that kind of question deplorable. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister puts the national security of this nation first. I hope that the hon. Lady does that as well.

Mr. Marlow: To follow the point made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald), if anybody has come out of this event with banana skin wrapped all over his face, is it not the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Luce: The whole nation sees that now.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Civil Service Unions

Mr. Soley: asked the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met the Civil Service unions; and what was discussed.

Mr. Luce: I have informal meetings from time to time with the Civil Service unions. Topics of mutual interest are discussed.

Mr. Soley: When the Minister next meets the unions, will he discuss the need for civil servants to have someone to go to if they have a complaint about the way in which they are used by Ministers? Are there not too many examples of the Government putting civil servants in the hot seat and expecting them to take responsibility for what the Government should take responsibility? Will the Minister discuss with the unions the need for such an arrangement?

Mr. Luce: The procedures are perfectly adequate, and in a reply during the summer months to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee the Government made it plain that we would work out in discussions with the unions a procedure which gave them ultimate appeal to the civil servant head of the Home Civil Service. That will be a new procedure, and once these procedures have been discussed with the unions they should be perfectly fair and reasonable.

Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the poor level of morale among Civil Service staff at both the British Geological Survey and the Building Research Establishment? Will he discuss with his departmental colleagues the need for early decisions on the future of those establishments, so that at least the civil servants know where they are supposed to be going?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Frind for drawing that to my attention and I shall certainly look into the two establishments what he mentioned. On the professional side of the Civil Service, whether accountants or scientists, special moves are being taken now to ensure that we deal with recruitment, retention and motivation problems by giving them, for example, pay additions to the basic pay of the Civil Service.

Mr. Madden: What will the Minister do to deal with the staffing crisis in the Department of Health and Social Security?

Mr. Luce: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is well aware of that and has already announced, as the hon. Gentleman must know, an increase of 5,000 in the number of civil servants over the next few months. That is designed to relieve some of the areas of strain at work.

Mr. Stanbrook: Has my right hon. Friend discussed with the union concerned the fact that all branches of the public service get credit for pre-appoinment war service in their pensions, except when that service was performed abroad? Is that not a great injustice? Will my right hon. Friend please see our right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to ask him to remove that anomaly and injustice towards a small, mostly elderly, group of people whose lives were spent mostly in adverse conditions, serving Her Majesty abroad?

Mr. Luce: As both my hon. Friend and I had the privilege of being in the Overseas Civil Service, serving Her Majesty abroad, I shall certainly undertake to look into his point.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does not Sir Robert Armstrong's appearance before the court in Australia illustrate the urgent need for an update of the Armstrong memorandum on the appearance of civil servants before Select Committees and other such bodies? Will the Minister consider accelerating the discussions with the trade unions to complete that review?

Mr. Luce: We are slightly confusing issues. At present the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee has given its recent report and view on the whole issue and the area in which civil servants should be questioned by Select Committees. We are now awaiting material from the liaison committee, and no fresh guidelines will be given until we have heard from it.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Has my right hon. Friend received any representations from the Civil Service trade unions in respect of Mr. Brian Gentleman, who was traduced by Mr. Gerry Gable and accused of being a Czech spy? Can my right hon. Friend tell the House anything about that?

Mr. Luce: I am afraid that I cannot. If my hon. Friend could give me more information later, I shall certainly look into the matter.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Has my right hon. Friend received any representations from the executive of the Civil and Public Services Association regarding the fact that, in the recent election of the general secretary, the result of which is due soon—indeed, my right hon. Friend may know it—21 branches were denied the right to vote in the election that Mr. Macreadie won? Is he aware that that amounted to 2,240 people?

Mr. Luce: As my hon. Friend has already said, there has just been a re-run of that CPSA election and we await the outcome. It could be some time this week.

Mr. Heffer: Will the Minister tell his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) and the press to keep out of the internal affairs of trade unions, that it is for trade union members to decide whom they vote for, whoever it is, and that Tory Members, the Government and the press should mind their own business?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman seems to be a little sensitive today. I do not know why. The House and the country await with interest the results of the CPSA election re-run, which will come out this week.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Sadler's Wells Theatre

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister for the Arts if he will now take further initiatives to ensure adequate funds to retain Sadler's Wells theatre for the fiscal year 1987–88.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): The problems of Sadler's Wells have been satisfactorily solved in the current year by a combination of sponsorship and grants to Arts Council clients using the theatre. It is for the Arts Council and the other bodies to determine funding levels for subsequent years.

Mr. Pavitt: Although I am grateful to the Minister for his staving-off operation for 12 months, he has missed the purpose of the question, which concerned fresh initiatives for the longer term. He has informed the House of the initiatives that he announced some little while ago. Those see Sadler's Wells clear for 12 months. However, one cannot plan for opera, ballet and the sort of thing that that company does in a 12-month period, because there are ongoing commitments. Will the Minister now take fresh initiatives so that Sadler's Wells can plan for the future, and not first the present year, which is safeguarded?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman continues to take a keen interest in this subject. There was major new sponsorship this financial year from the Digital Equipment Company, which covered not just this financial year but next year. In addition, the Arts Council must decide how much it can allocate to the companies which use Sadler's Wells, because it is those companies which are being supported by the Government. The Arts Council must decide that, although I give it indicative figures which look to two to three years ahead.

Airborne Early Warning System

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the proposed Government purchase of an early warning system for the Royal Air Force.
That the matter is specific is self-evident. It involves the largest Ministry of Defence contract in the field of the high technologies of electronics or avionics to be awarded this Parliament. It has already cost nearly £1 billion. If the contract goes to GEC, it will cost another £450 million. If it goes to Boeing, it could cost upwards of £1 billion.
The matter is important because our national defence interests and our NATO commitments depend on a correct decision being taken. If the contract goes to foreign competition, the Government will be abdicating their responsibility for their role over the past seven years. They have moved the goal posts on several occasions. They have turned off the financial tap at crucial times. They have failed to provide leadership.
Over the past weekend there has been the unprecedented spectacle of a public slanging match between a former member of the present Administration and the Royal Air Force, each accusing the other of being economical of the truth. GEC has claimed that, of 100 hours of flight time, 91 hours and 14 minutes included the perfect working of those avionics.
GEC has offered a contract with penalty clauses of unprecedented magnitude, yet the Government still go for a foreign option.
It is urgent that we should discuss the matter, because the Government should have the advice of the entire

House before coming to a conclusion. It is too late in the life of this Parliament for the Government to come to a decision of such magnitude without satisfying all quarters of the House of the wisdom of their action. They could even now agree to an independent assessment, away from the recriminations and the soured atmosphere that exists at present. They could agree to clear the air.
It is urgent that the Government should consider the implications for British industry and for national pride. Last Christmas, the Prime Minister gave United States industry, as a present, Westland Helicopters' technology. Last spring she tried to give it Land Rover, but only this House and the country's rebellion prevented that from happening. This Christmas she will give the United States industry 2,500 jobs and nearly £1 billion and so she will abdicate from one of the most important areas of high technology for British interests.
The matter should be discussed in the House. It is far too important for the Cabinet to take a decision without hearing all our views.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the proposed Government purchase of an early warning system for the Royal Air Force.
I listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman said. As he knows, my sole duty in coming to a decision under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether the matter should be given priority over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised does not meet all the criteria set down under the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Harrier GR5 Mission Simulator

Mr. Greville Janner: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the Government's award of a contract for the Harrier GR5 Mission Stimulator"—
[Interruption.] I am glad that I have stimulated the Government, and wish that I could do so more often. I should have said,
Simulator Singer Link Miles, using its own United States associate's proposal and the rejection of the United Kingdom's Marconi visual system".
The matter is specific in that it refers to one vital contract. It is urgent because the decision has just been taken. It is crucial to my constituency, because the factory involved is on New Parks estate. The issue is also crucial to Leicestershire, because 280 man years of work are involved in the initial contract and many of the workers come from various parts of the county, as shown by the joint representations made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), the right hon. Member for Bosworth (Sir A. Butler) and myself, to the Secretary of State for Defence, to which he has not listened.
The matter is vital to the nation as it involves yet another sell out to the United States. If the contract is retained here, the benefits to United Kingdom industry are that it would secure the position for Marconi and this country in world markets, would promote the United Kingdom development of a very important high technology product, would encourage the United Kingdom in developing supporting products, would promote Commonwealth and industrial co-operation and it would contribute to the maintenance and growth of United Kingdom employment opportunities. All that is to be thrown away in return for a very small additional temporary benefit. It is a disgrace, and the House should consider the matter now and not simply hand over such technology to the United States without giving our industry a chance to develop and use it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely, the Government's award of a contract for the Harrier GR5 Mission Simulator Singer Link Miles, using its own United States associate's proposal and the rejection of the United Kingdom's Marconi visual system.
I regret that I must give the hon. and learned Gentleman the same answer as I gave to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I do not consider the matter that the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Nicholas Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I must raise a serious matter that arises out of Friday's debate on defence projects. During that debate the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement seriously misled the House, and I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on how the matter can be corrected.
The House will know that for some time I have challenged the integrity of the decision-making process over the auxiliary oil replinisher contract, and I specifically raised that matter with the new Under-Secretary of State. I asked him to explain why the designs were not to be released until January, despite the Prime Minister's assurance that they had been comprehensively costed in April 1986. The Under-Secretary of State replied:
I am sure that it was possible to produce a comprehensive costing of the ship without the detailed drawings, and we are waiting for them to come through".—[Official Report, 12 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 726.]
That cannot be correct, because, if it is, the Prime Minister must have misled the House last April.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Archie Hamilton): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I stand by what I said on Friday, as it was factually correct. The hon. Gentleman will know that shipbuilding companies regularly quote fixed prices before all the drawings have been produced.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but we cannot have a further debate on this matter.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order relates to the important matter that is about to be discussed in a Cabinet Committee on Wednesday, I believe, and in Cabinet on Thursday about the question of the Nimrod and AWACS systems. As an ex-RAF man, one of the points that concerns me—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is very interesting, but it is not a point of order for me.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Perhaps you will bear with me a minute, Mr. Speaker. We were the pioneers in radar—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of this place for even longer than I have, and he knows that what happens in Cabinet is not a matter for the Chair.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Further to that, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that I can help the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: You might be able to, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I honestly do not think that I can. I would love to be able to, but I do not think that I can.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and the


hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) have referred to contracts that relate to highly technical matters. Is it in order for hon. Members who are not experts in these matters and who really are laymen to presume to supplant the judgment of the experts?

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is it on the same subject?

Mr. Heffer: Surely you would not stop an ex-member of the Royal Air Force from speaking in the House of Commons—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would have to stop anyone, whether he was from the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy or even the Indian cavalry, if the point of order was not a matter for the Chair.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. I must tell the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) that all that concerns me when I consider an application under Standing Order No. 20 is whether it is in order for the application to be made. It was perfectly in order for the two applications to be made today.

BILL PRESENTED

TOBACCO SMOKING (PUBLIC PLACES)

Mr. Roger Sims, supported by Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Alistair Burt, Mr. Laurie Pavitt, Mr. Jeremy Hanley and Mr. John Home Robertson, presented a Bill to limit smoking in public places; to make provision with regard to smoking and employment; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 13 February and to be printed. [Bill 37.]

Security Services

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), I must tell the House that I have not selected the amendment on the Order Paper.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I beg to move,
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to set up a judicial enquiry to examine the circumstances surrounding alleged attempts by officers of the security services to subvert the government of Lord Wilson of Rievaulx in the 1970s, and to carry out all party discussions with a view to repealing official secrets legislation and to the introduction of a new legal framework giving appropriate and necessary protection to official secrets and, in particular, official secrets in relation to national security; and calls for consistency in the application of the law.
There are two motions on the Order Paper and they are almost identical. One is an early-day motion and the other a motion for debate. The early-day motion carries the names of 153 hon. Members. Therefore, I start this debate with the support of 153 hon. Members and I intend at the end of the debate to divide the House, if possible, and to pick up more hon. Members in support of the principles set out in the motion.
On my way to London last week a colleague I was travelling with asked me what I was trying to prove. During the course of this campaign I have been trying to prove that the law as it stands is not working, that the law is an ass in so far as it is being inconsistently applied, and that there are those who are beyond the law. Those who are beyond the law include certain groups of officers within the security services. Some authors and journalists who rely for their daily bread on being fed information on the security services are also beyond the law. They are in the business of buying and selling secrets, most notably Mr. Chapman Pincher. Mr. Rupert Allason, a Conservative party candidate otherwise known as Mr. Nigel West, has also sold secrets.
I include among those who are beyond the law a number of security officers, including specifically Mr. Arthur Martin. Mr. Martin is a former Clerk to the House.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is making a speech about those who consider themselves to be outside the law. Would he dare to make the rest of the speech outside in the street without the benefit of parliamentary privilege? Is that not a far worse abuse of the law?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has intervened, because it gives me an opportunity to say to those who wish to intervene that I shall be dealing with all of these matters. If at the end of my speech the hon. Gentleman still feels moved to intervene, I shall give way to him.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Mr. Arthur Martin was a Clerk to the House of Commons from the mid-1970s until approximately 1981. He worked for MI5 until 1965 and then worked for MI6 until 1975. Mr. Arthur Martin remained very close to the security services during that period.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Indeed, he remained so close that he was able to brief Mr. Rupert Allason in detail for his book, "A Matter of Trust".
I also include among those who are beyond the law the two Conservative Members of Parliament who, if Mr. Wright's allegations are true, were involved in action against the Crown.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: rose

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Mr. Wright names the two Conservative Members in his book, but I ask the Government to deny that that is the case and that they are named.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it fair for the hon. Gentleman to refer to certain people who are allegedly making money while not saying anything about the gentleman in Australia who is probably making a packet out of his memoirs?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question as to whether that is fair is for the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will now understand why it may not be necessary to give way again during my speech.
According to Mr. Wright, those Conservative Members of Parliament, only one of whom is now sitting, acted as conduits for the smear campaign against Harold Wilson which was organised from within MI5 by some 30 security officers, some very senior. They knew that the information they were receiving came illegally from within MI5. They did not stop it, nor did they report it to the Home Secretary. They just passed it on in the knowledge that it would destabilise the Labour Prime Minister and his Government. I do not intend to name the Members of Parliament involved, I am simply approaching one of them and asking that person to make a personal statement prior to Mr. Wright's book being published.
The whole affair has been plagued by inconsistencies which derive directly from deficiencies in the law. Far worse is the fact that the Government, in a desperate attempt to plug the dyke of inconsistency, have had to practise deceipt and duplicity. That was what Sir Robert Armstrong was doing in the Australian courts. He was lying for the Crown. He lied over the Attorney-General's failure to stop the Pincher book; he lied over the crucial question of how copies of a synopsis of Pincher's book came into the hands of the Government; and he lied over the arrangements for the clearing of Mr. Allason's book. It is better not to answer than to tell a lie. He has disgraced his country and earned the justifiable contempt of Australia. He has also done irreparable damage to the historic relationship between our two peoples. It is only the existence of close family ties at a very personal level between those at home and those in Australia which will ensure that the historic relationship endures. I am at a loss to understand the lack of public protest over his indiscretions.
What has happened to the old values, or was I brought up to believe in a myth? I was able to predict all this in July 1986, when I raised this matter on three occasions in the House of Commons—on 14, 21 and 25 July. I did so with the single intention of smashing the injunction that was pending against The Observer and The Guardian newspapers. I did it by reading into Hansard the Cathy

Massiter evidence. I wanted to secure an open debate without the courts breathing down the neck of Fleet Street, because I believed that this affair was not about not the Hollis affair, or about security officers publishing their memoirs, but about one issue—the allegation that attempts had been made to undermine the Wilson Government by security officers.
It is the biggest political scandal of this century. It is a story of collusion between the British Right and the security services. It surpasses in importance the Zinoviev letter which effectively sealed the fate of the Labour Government in the 1920s. To quote "Man and an institution—Sir Maurice Hankey, the Cabinet Secretariat and the Custody of Cabinet Secrecy" by Mr. J. F. Naylor, published by the Cambridge University Press, on the Zinoviev letter he said:
there is no longer room for doubt that 'the political bomb which exploded in the last days of the Labour Government was planted by the intelligence community' … the 'Zinoviev letter' was deliberately manipulated by a number of hands to secure a political end, namely Labour's defeat at the polls … from a historical perspective, the shocking aspect of the sordid electoral proceedings is the joint intrigue of the intelligence community with leading Tory party officials, including the chairman, Sir Stanley Jackson, and the treasurer, Lord Younger, to ensure the publication of a document bound to influence the latter stages of the campaign.
It happened then, it happened in the 1960s and in the 1970s and it will happen again, unless we intervene. Down the years, there have been repeated reports of collusion. Today I want to concentrate not on collusion but on the specific issue of the interfence by the security services with the Labour party and the Government of that time.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Has the hon. Gentleman had time to study the Official Report of 8 December 1977 when the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) said:
The Prime Minister has conducted detailed inquiries into the recent allegations about the Security Service and is satisfied that they do not constitute grounds for lack of confidence in the competence and impartiality of the Security Services".—[Official Report, 8 December 1977; Vol. 940, c. 1645.]
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that what was said by his right hon. Friend was not true?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the whole statement by my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman proves once again the need for me to finish my contribution, because I intend to deal with these matters. The hon. Gentleman should not be so impetuous.
On 12 May 1977 Mr. Barry Penrose and Mr. Roger Courtiour were summoned by Mr. Harold Wilson to his house in Lord North street. During that conversation he set out in detail and at subsequent meetings his allegations against the security services. "The Pencourt File", a book that was published about these matters, said:
Sir Harold spoke in detail about the burglaries that he and some of his Labour colleagues in the Government had suffered. He spoke too about the extraordinary 'dirty tricks' which he said had been aimed against some of his Ministers in order to discredit them. He said the culprits were connected with South Africa and with intelligence circles in Britain itself. There was an important story to be investigated, he said, and more than once he used the name Watergate to describe what had been happening in Britain.
Sir Harold is quoted as saying:
I am not certain that for the last eight months when I was Prime Minister I knew what was happening fully, in Security".


The book goes on:
He"—
Sir Harold—
really would not rule out the possibility that individuals working inside MI5, and even MI6, had contributed to the 'smears' which, he complained, had frequently appeared in the Press and elsewhere while he had been at Number 10".
That is all on tape and available today to be heard by those who want to know the truth of what happened in that period because those two journalists made a point of taping what they were listening to.
Mr. Chapman Pincher, who will feature later in my contribution, also had much to say on these matters. In his book, "Inside Story" he said:
Wilson was reported as having accused certain officers of MI5 of having tried to undermine him and his government. He was quoted as believing that some of the disaffected faction in MI5 with extreme right-wing views' had even suggested that there was a Communist cell in the Cabinet and that he and Lady Falklender, his political secretretary, formerly Mrs Marcia Williams, were part of it.
Mr. Pincher went on:
I have confirmed that these were indeed Sir Harold's views and that long before his feelings about MI5 became public knowledge he had been in the habit of sounding off about them in private … This had come to my notice when a most eminent Oxford Professor wrote to me to describe what had happened at a literary lunch he had attended in Leeds in January 1977. 'I happened to sit next to Sir Harold … He told me that MI5 had spied on him when he was Prime Minister, plotted against him, tried to secure his downfall. I was embarrassed by this conversation. Finally, I said "But isn't MI5 under the Prime Minister?" He replied, "Oh yes, on paper, but that didn't make any difference."'
Mr. Pincher went on:
Some of Wilson's friends also told me that he had gone much further in his condemnation of MI5 in conversations with them.
There is much in Mr. Pincher's book on these matters and I do not want to detain the House by quoting them because they are there to read for all who are interested in these matters.
There were a number of articles in the newspapers at the time. I have a file of articles in the British press, and, in particular, from The Times, which sought to take these allegations seriously and published much material. Indeed, it did further investigative work.
We also have the words of Mr. Nigel West—Mr. Rupert Allason, the Conservative candidate to whom I have referred—who commented on a plot which took place in the 1960s. He said:
It seems that an invitation extended by Lord Mountbatten to various public figures, to engage in talks to discuss the country's decline under Socialism, led to allegations to MI5 of an attempted coup d'état.
Sir Martin Furnival Jones comments on those in an interview with reporters on The Times, much of which is also available today, in a form of which he may not be aware.
All those attempts involved security officers. Indeed, the discussions on the allegations that we hear today of what took place in the 1960s involved, to some extent, the same officers who were involved in the 1970s.
The only dissenting view on these matters is the voice of Mr. Joe Haines, a very reputable journalist on the Daily Mirror, but I am told that Mr. Haines has had his differences with Lord Wilson and it might be that those differences account in some part for the varying views on these matters.
The question is, why was not Lord Wilson taken seriously at the time? The first reason is that the whole

issue was overshadowed by the Thorpe affair which dominated Parliament for months and prevented a realistic debate from taking place on security matters. At a time when even reference to the security services was frowned upon in the House, it was seen as the accusation of a retiring politician and Prime Minister. When it was raised in the early 1980s it was once again crowded out by the debate on the Hollis affair and Blunt. Now there is a distinction, a difference, and that is because Mr. Wright has surfaced. He is directly involved in these allegations and is the first security officer to whom I give full credence on these matters. He says that he was involved and that, to some extent, he masterminded the operation. He speaks about
burgling and bugging all over London.
We cannot quote directly from Mr. Wright's manuscript, but we know that by one means or another over the past one and a half years parts of it have come into the hands of the media in Australia and especially into the hands of freelance journalists in New South Wales. That was before the matter became an issue of public controversy.
The matter is of immense importance because the allegations strike at the heart of our democratic institutions. The assumption that everyone plays by the Queensberry rules has been shattered. The implications go far wider because, if we look at Zinoviev, the 1968 discussions about a coup and the 1975 discussions about a coup—erhaps in some ways irrelevant but nevertheless important—we see the destabilisation of a Labour Government. One has to ask what could happen to a future Labour Government. Could this happen again? If there is any chance of it happening again, Parliament has a duty to act fast.
Where dos this stop? The security services could effectively assassinate the character of any politician, and we all know how. Indeed, they could assassinate this Prime Minister by way of rumour and innuendo. The Prime Minister has not the persuasion of my hon. Friends, but in many quarters she is seen as radical in her own way, and all radical Prime Ministers and politicians are threatened by a security service which, in defence of the interests of the establishment, might choose to take action to destabilise its Government. There is a special responsibility on the Prime Minister to act because over the past few years she has upset many interests in Britain. If those interests sought to destroy her, they could do it and the Prime Minister must know that.
The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) has referred to the response by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan). The hon. Gentleman came in to make an intervention and now he has disappeared to have his press conferece. We know what happened in the inquiry that the hon. Gentleman spoke about. It was small and drew its information from a few people. My right hon. Friend took soundings from the director-general of MI5 and MI6, the very organisations which we now condemn for irresponsible acts. At that time I do not think that my right hon. Friend was fully aware of the implications of the accusation by Sir Harold Wilson. I am sure that he did his job within the confines of his being responsible for the security services.
If my right hon. Friend were faced with that decision today, I feel sure that he would undertake a far more detailed and profound inquiry. That is what would happen


in the United States of America in the event of such allegations being made there. If such allegations were raised in the United States, Congressional committees of inquiry would be set up to examine them. That is what happened over Watergate, and it is happening today over the supply of weapons to Iran. When Americans feel that their constitution is being challenged by anti-democratic bodies, the first thing they do is to bring into action their Congressional investigative committees to establish the truth. That is the sort of thing that we should do. If such an inquiry were held here, it would reveal the truth. That is at the heart of the first part of the motion. Such an inquiry could well take us down some strange routes and could lead to some interesting doors.
The inquiry would have to take evidence from a number of organisations and individuals. It would need to take evidence from Sir Martin Furnival Jones, the former head of MI5, and from MI5 and MI6 officers, including Mr. Wright, if he could be induced to come back to the United Kingdom. It might even have to take evidence from General Sir Walter Walker about civil assistance, and from David Stirling's GB75—and what about the elusive Mr. Greenwood, with his so-called 700 security vetted members, or perhaps from Mr. G. K. Young, a former deputy director of MI6 and his UNISON committee for action?
At first glimpse they may not appear to be elements within MI5, but these fringe organisations operated in conjunction with MI5 officers. That is what an inquiry would establish. Indeed, it might establish that some of the people involved were in the mainstream of British politics. As I have said, two Conservative hon. Members are identified by Mr. Wright.

Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that Field-Marshal Lord Carver, who was Chief of the Defence Staff at that time, said that in February 1974 some Army officers at Army headquarters were talking about the possibility of military intervention? That talk was condemned by Field-Marshal Lord Carver, because he would have been the last person to show any disloyalty to Britain and its democratic institutions. Is my hon. Friend aware that, when I raised these matters in the House, among those who pooh-poohed the whole business was the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who I understand had some MI5 connections in the past?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do not know of the connections about which my hon. Friend speaks. All such matters would be dealt with exhaustively by a judicial inquiry, if one were set up. It would establish the truth, because we need to know the truth. We need to know the connection between the Conservative party, the security services and these private armies, because that is most embarrassing to the Government. Perhaps that accounts for the Prime Minister's refusal to allow the Wilson allegation transcripts to come out in the Australian courts. The Government allowed the transcripts about Hollis to come out, but they blocked the transcripts about the Wilson allegations. Ministers should tell us why they did that. We need a judicial inquiry and it ought to have most of its hearings in open session, because the matters that I have spoken about have implications for our democratic system.
I should now like to turn to the Official Secrets Act, the reforms sought in my motion, and the matter of lifetime obligations of confidentiality to the Crown. Ministers have frequently spoken about that. Ever since I first heard the allegations by Mr. Wright, my overriding objective has been to destroy the case in the Australian court. That is not because I have any sympathy for Wright; on the contrary, to sell information to Summerpage was an act of treachery, and it was equally treacherous of Pincher to buy it.
Lord Rothschild's role becomes more mystifying day by day, but a lot has still to come out. I have asked for prosecutions under section 7 of the Official Secrets Act, because that section makes it an offence to incite and persuade civil servants to provide information which is officially secret.
When Pincher and Allason appear on television slagging me off and protesting their innocence over section 2 inquiries and hiding behind Treasury solicitors and D notice authorisations, they are missing the point. I am asking for their prosecution not under section 2 of the 1911 Act, but under section 7 of the 1920 Act. No authority can authorise illegality under that Act. I am about to table a parliamentary question asking for the prosecution, under section 7, of Rupert Allason, prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for Torbay, for soliciting, inciting and persuading Mr. Arthur Martin, the MI6 officer to whom I have referred, to provide information for his book "A Matter of Trust".
As I have said, Mr. Martin was a Clerk in the House of Commons until 1981. He was Clerk to the Agriculture Select Committee and I am told that he was a pleasant character. He was a member of MI6, and the House is entitled to know what was the relationship between Mr. Arthur Martin and MI6 while he was a Clerk to the House. It was Martin who confronted Blunt with the allegation that he was a spy, and he debriefed him. Martin was a key figure in MI5 and later MI6. I find it curious that no mention of him was made in any book on the security services until the beginning of 1981, after his retirement from the House of Commons, and then in Pincher's book. There was no reference in Pincher's book "Inside Story" in 1978, but Martin left MI6 in 1974, or thereabouts. For whom was Martin working when he was working in the House of Commons? We are entitled to know. Is there an MI6 man in the House of Commons today?
The House will know that I have been the subject of repeated accusations of irresponsibility in naming names. Only those in the Press Gallery know how careful I have been not to breach national security in my campaign. My bid to destroy the case was not only to secure the publication of the Wilson allegations but to focus on the nonsense of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act and the inconsistency in that Act. This meant that I had to name names. All the names that I have tabled on the Order Paper are of people who have surfaced themselves and made statements publicly, thereby declaring their interest and identifying themselves as former security officers. They have all broken section 2 of the Official Secrets Act in talking to journalists and authors. All their names are to be found in books available in every public library in the United Kingdom that cares to stock them.
I tabled the names to show the inconsistency in the Government's position. I had 43 names the other week. I have tabled two since and I have a further 41. I have no desire to carry on tabling names, but what does one do


with those people who have broken the law? Does one ignore them, as the Government seem to have been doing over the past few years? The Government's position is totally inconsistent. It is inconsistent to drag Mr. Wright through the courts while ignoring others in the intelligence community who have leaked information. I have been tabling their names, and it has been interesting to see the Government's response. The names have either been referred to the Metropolitan Police for their investigation or drawn to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Government have admitted that prosecutions are now being considered. Inquiries have been set up as a result of names that I have tabled and letters of reprimand have been sent out to former security officers. So much for the allegations of irresponsibility tabled against me.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Surely the point that my hon. Friend is making is that the Government are wrong in doing what they are doing. That does not mean that peoole who have given evidence and declared what they were should be prosecuted, because, if we do that, we would be no better than the Government.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend is correct. I have tried to explain that my campaign is to show inconsistency. One must table questions to draw attention to those who have not been prosecuted.

Mr. Heffer: It is one thing to table questions, and another to argue for prosecution.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend takes the words out of my mouth.
Who are the rest of the security officers? West, or Mr. Allason, in "A Matter of Trust" says:
Meticulous research backed by hundreds of hours of interviews with agents, double agents and case officers has resulted in answers to these compelling questions.
He was interviewing agents and people in the security services, to whom, somehow, he had access. Every one of those agents, in speaking to Allason, broke the law, but the Government took no action.
In Pincher's book "Too Secret Too Long" one is able to identify 32 MI5 and MI6 sources, but what action did the Government take against those sources when they fed Mr. Pincher, a high-ranking member of the Conservative Party? In the book "Conspiracy of Silence", Penrose and Freeman identify 18 officers, all of whom are quoted. All 18 are quoted in default of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, but there has been no action by the Government. I asked the Government what action had been taken under section 2 to silence them, and the answer was none.
In all three cases, no action to prosecute was taken, because the Government gave clearance to the books and in doing so sanctioned leaks from officers. They would never have given clearance for those books unless they had been sanctioning leaks from officers. That is why I tabled a question, to which I have just received an answer from the Secretary of State for Defence, about the operation of the D notice committee. He tells me that he is not in a position to answer questions as to criterion considered and work carried out by that committee. The Government replied that Wright is a former MI5 employee. Are former MI5 employees bound by lifetime obligations to the Crown? If that is true, how did they respond to Friday's letter to the editor in The Times from Mr. Pincher, in which he said:

I have never paid Mr. Wright anything. Mr. Wright received royalties on a jointly-authored book".
Mr. Pincher now says that Mr. Wright was the author of the book. Last Monday, in a BBC transmission, Mr. Pincher said that he had received approval from the highest levels of the Government. The Government, in the words of Mr. Pincher, if he is to be believed, sanctioned a book by a former MI5 officer. It might be that Mr. Pincher is so worried about the questions I have tabled calling for his prosecution under section 7 for paying money to Mr. Wright that he is wriggling so much that he is now having to mislead the British media into believing that his role was not quite what Parliament is being told and what Ministers are saying behind cupped hands behind closed doors. He is wriggling, and it is interesting to see the way in which he is responding.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that the revelation by Chapman Pincher in the letter on Friday is incredibly hard to reconcile with the Attorney-General's comment
the idea that we can allow officers or ex-officers of the security services to write books would probably end with us not having any important secrets which should be preserved."—[Official Report, 1 December 1986; Vol, 106, c. 620.]

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend draws attention again to an inconsistency, but then this whole affair is riddled with inconsistencies, and that is why we want to change the law. All these matters would come out if there were some form of inquiry for, in that case, there were in existence the scrutiny arrangements which were the subject of debate only a week and a half ago in the House of Commons.
Many books have been produced by security officers. For example, there is "Handbook for Spies" by Courtney Young and Michael Serpell, both MI5 officers. That book was written on the request of Sir Percy Sillitoe, the director general of MI5. "Cloak without Dagger" was written by Sir Percy Sillitoe with the help of Russell Lee, another MI5 officer. I am told that the journalist, Andrew Boyle, is currently researching a biography of Sir Dick White, another former director-general of MI5. What does the Minister intend to do about that book? It may be that it should come into the public domain. We should like to hear what the Minister has to say about that. I am sure that those in Australia want to hear what he has to say about these matters. It is a pity that those involved in the Peter Wright case are summing up now and not examining these matters in evidence.
"A Man Called Intrepid" is the biography of Sir William Stephenson, a former head of intelligence. It was written by Hartford Montgomery Hyde, another intelligence officer. Hyde wrote another book entitled "The Quiet Canadian", and included the name of the chief of the British secret intelligence service, Sir Stewart Menzies. He obtained official permission to do so. Sir John Masterman wrote "The Double Cross System". As a former MI5 officer he obtained permission from the Government to publish the book in the early 1970s. I am told that that permission was obtained from a Government of whom the Minister was a member. Perhaps he will deal with that when he replies.
Another example is the interesting book which was written by Mr. John Moe which I dug out of the woodwork for the Minister the other week. The book was published only nine weeks ago, and when I tabled a question about it I received the famous blocking answer


that it would be inappropriate to discuss how the book was published while proceedings are going on in the Australian courts. That book, which was written by a security officer, has been made available in British shops.
I brought Joan Miller's book into the public domain, and when I tabled a question about it the Government decided in desperation and in haste to run to the Irish courts to take out an injunction. A lady judge of the Irish courts gave them a good smack in the face. She realised that it was a lot of nonsense for the Government to apply—

Mr. Max Madden: A lot of baloney.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: That seems to be the in term today.
I have mentioned only some of the many books which have been written and published over the years. I have a list of them which came off the computer of the House of Commons. It has become fashionable to hold up in the Chamber lists which have come from Library computers for relating to party conferences, for example. These books all include statements by security officers or are drawn on their experiences, and all these officers have over the years broken the nonsensical law that exists.
The Government have turned a blind eye to these happenings—

Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend may not like this, but of great importance is a book written by Sir Paul Dukes about the secret service operations in the Soviet Union at the end of the first world war. I think that it was published in 1933. It is something that the Government have forgotten. Indeed, most people have forgotten about it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend is right. I saw him studying the papers on these matters last week when he was sitting next to me in the Chamber. He has provided another example which goes back 40 or 50 years. I did not introduce it because I felt that it was important to introduce contemporary material.
Another interesting name is David Cornwall. I am told that he is known otherwise as John Le Carre. I am sure that I shall be corrected if I am wrong. I am told also that he is a former MI6 officer—a former section chief in Berlin. Under the guise of novels he has released a substantial amount of information on what Mr. Wright has referred to as tradecraft, which is an interesting term.
The Government's policy is being applied inconsistently. Certain writers are given the green light, most notably Pincher and Allason. What is Chapman Pincher's relationship with MI5 and MI6? In my view, it is questionable to say the least. We know that he is a prominent Conservative, but, putting that aside, he claims a friendship with a former director-general of MI6, Maurice Oldfield. He claims to know innumerable members of the security services.
The Prime Minister used Chapman Pincher to deal with the Hollis allegations, and the right hon. Lady's statement of 26 March 1981 is a classic. It was as if she were introducing a Green Paper or White Paper. She said:
Mr. Speaker, with permission, I will make a statement about the security implications of the book published today that purports to give a detailed account of the investigations into the penetration of the Security Service and other parts of the public service"—[Official Report, 26 March 1981; Vol. I, c. 1079.]

In other words, the Prime Minister waited for the publication of the book, and on the very day that it came into the public domain she made a statement in the House. I say that the Prime Minister's hand is behind the book that was published by Pincher. If Pincher is right in what he wrote in his article that appeared in The Times last week, the right hon. Lady has sanctioned a breach of the law. Some might say that she, too, should be prosecuted.
I believe that Mr. Chapman Pincher is very close to some elements in MI5, and so close that a deal was stitched up to ensure that his book was published. It was Bernard Sheldon, a junior solicitor in MI5 for the Security Service—I do not know whether he was in MI6—who cleared the book. We learn so much from that. If Pincher did not know that he was getting the green light, he certainly knew that by the beginning of 1981.
I know that Mr. Pincher denies that that was the position, but anyone reading the Sunday Express over these past weeks, however—it has been delightful reading—will take all that he has to say with a pinch of salt. His predictions do not come true. He was writing only a few days ago about how my hon. Friends and I were being used by Mr. Turnbull. He claimed that all would be revealed when Mr. Wright went into the witness box. We know now that nothing happened. Readers of the Daily Express and the Sunday Express are entitled to know what went wrong with his predictions.
What of Mr. Allason's relations with MI5 and MI6? His relationship is especially interesting. His book, "A Matter of Trust" is an encyclopaedia of information on the security services. At the front of his book there is a plan which sets out the structure of MI5 until 1965, which I hold up for the House to see. How did Allason obtain that information? How did he know what was going on internally? We know that the Government sanctioned the book, because the Attorney-General told us that he had done so. It seems that all the obstacles were cleared. The Government made a few amendments and removed a few names, but all the material contained in the book came into the public domain. I am not saying that it is wrong that this information should be made available publicly, but as the law stands it should not be made available publicly. We know, however, that there were no prosecutions. If the Government are willing to allow that material into the public domain, they should change the law. In providing the information they know that security officers have broken section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, yet they are refusing to take action.
Hundreds of names were deleted from Mr. Allason's book, but having written it he was invited by MI6 to write another, and it was quickly produced. Indeed, it seems that someone in the background must have been writing it for him. I am told that it was produced in only a few months, yet it dealt once again in great detail with the internal workings of MI6 during a crucial period of its existence.
Perhaps even more remarkable is Mr. Allason's book that is entitled "GCHQ". It seems to be a compendium of signals intelligence from the second world war to the present day. How did he get that information? Has someone been leaking? If someone has been leaking, why have prosecutions not been brought under the Act which the Government know is not working in the way that, many years ago, was intended by Parliament?
Every author in this business wants to know how Mr. Allason gets his material. He is being systematically fed. This is no ordinary researching effort by Mr. Allason.


Could it be his Tory connections, and the fact that he stood in two general elections as a Tory candidate and today stands for the constituency of Torbay? He seems to know more about security services successes than failures, which leads me to believe that he is being fed from on high, and not just my Mr. Arthur Martin, the former Clerk to the House of Commons. I want to know to what extent he was involved in revealing to MI5 Mr. Wright's intention to write a book. The Sunday People, as it is now, published a letter about that matter some years ago. Did he give advance warning to MI5? If he did, why? What was his motive? He has become the unofficial spokesman for the security services, with some form of special access, and with some form of special immunity from prosecution given not only to him but to his sources.
The Attorney-General's position confounds me. I cannot understand how he survives politically. From Wright's letter to Pincher, we know that he revealed the innermost considerations of his office on why Allason should not be prosecuted and also told him of Martin's indiscretions in revealing classified information. The Attorney-General himself breached section 2. The Government responded by claiming self-authorisation as a defence. That is rubbish. It does not justify what he did. I have read every word on self-authorisation, including Franks. Self-authorisation is permissible only when it is part of one's duty, as a Minister in this case, to reveal information. Pincher had no right to that information; he had no duties in regard to it. He had no responsibility to receive it, but he was given it by the Attorney-General. Under section 2, the Attorney-General had a responsibility to prosecute Pincher for revealing that that which Armstrong said in the Australian Court breached security.
The story is sordid and squalid. It is a cover-up of the Attorney-General's position. A Labour Attorney-General would not be allowed to get away with it. I am told that the Attorney-General is desperate for the Woolsack. How desperate can a man be for his 30 pieces of silver? History will judge him harshly.
I have had two objectives in this campaign. They have been to secure the Wilson revelations, to ensure that they were made public, and to show the deficiencies in the Official Secrets Act. We need a more open, accountable, yet effective security regime. We should seek to protect information of operational importance and information which, if published, would be prejudicial to national security.
We should have followed closely the American system. In the United States of America, the director of the CIA appears on television. His office location is not a national secret. The CIA is so open that, only last year, Stansfield Turner, a former head of the CIA, was able to publish his memoirs. Indeed, 400 former CIA security service officers have published articles and books. They have all published works with authorisation from the CIA management review board. If a system can be set up in America that allows those people to write books and to ensure that they are published, surely we can set up a similar system, particularly if we have the scrutiny committee for which my hon. Friends have called.
Over the past weeks, I have been repeatedly asked what I should have done in the case of Mr. Wright. Under existing law, the Government have an obligation to make stick the lifetime oath of confidentiality and to use injunctions and the Official Secrets Act for the protection of official secrets of a national security nature—only

those. But the law should have been applied to all. It was not. That means no selection and no special favours because of connections. In so far as the Government have turned a blind eye to the law for years, it simply cannot be justifiable for them to take action against Wright's book, particularly when Turnbull, when he came to London, offered the Treasury Solicitor a deal that would have erased from the book any references to Security Service activities of a sensitive nature affecting the security of the nation. Under existing law and in the light of Government practice over years, the Government should have done a deal with Turnbull. Under the law as it should be, that is to say with the repeal of Section 2 and the retention of the body of section 1, a freedom of information Act in place, and the proper definition of classified material of a national security nature—which should be defined as information of operational importance which, if revealed, would be prejudicial to national security—Wright would have been able to publish. He would have had to secure clearance of sensitive material and delete, where necessary, on the instructions of a security clearance committee, but he would have been able to publish, particularly his allegations on Wilson.
I have written to the Prime Minister, asking her to ensure that that part of the book that deals with the allegations against the security services involving Wilson is published, irrespective of what happens in the Australian courts. There is no reason why that information should not be brought into the public domain this week. The great British public want to know the truth. They want to know whether it is true that a small group of people set out to undermine a democratically elected Government.

Mr. Williams: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but this is a critical point. Does he agree that we are here to discuss not just the contents of the book but one of the major offences that can be committed under our law—the act of sedition? "Halsbury's Laws of England" states:
Sedition in the common law means acts done, words spoken and published or writings published with a seditious intention, that is an intention (1) to bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection against, the Sovereign or the Government".
In his book, Wright admitted that he and his colleagues were guilty of sedition against the then Labour Administration. In those circumstances, it is beyond credibility that the Government do not set up some form of investigation.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The law must apply equally to all—the highest and the lowest in the land. That is what the public want. We do not want special treatment of certain people. We want the law to apply to everyone. If the law is an ass, repeal it.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) asked what had happened to the old values. Having heard his speech, many of us may be asking ourselves that same question—what, indeed, has happened to the old values?
The hon. Gentleman is entitled to say that the House should be indebted to him for using this opportunity to debate these matters. I do not cavil at his having selected this matter for debate. We should be grateful to him for being so delightfully frank with us.
The hon. Gentleman said that the explanation for his behaviour over recent weeks was that he had one overriding objective—to destroy the case in the Australian courts. That case was brought by the British Government to preserve the principle that a person employed by the security services has a life-long duty of confidentiality, which, if my understanding is right, the hon. Gentleman acknowledged at the close of his speech. That has been the hon. Gentleman's ambition. Some of us may think that it is a curious ambition to set out to destroy the British Government's case in the Australian courts, but at least it is as well that the British public know.
I should think that almost everyone in the country accepts that we have to have a security service—that it is a crucial element in the safety and security of the people. I should think that there is also a general agreement that the responsibilities of the Security Service cannot be carried out effectively in a blaze of publicity. That is why it has been the general policy of successive Governments not to comment on the operation of the Security Service, even if it means that false and misleading allegations have to go unanswered. But I think that we ought to bear it in mind that, when wild allegations are made and not answered, it must be very disheartening and dispiriting for the people working in the service in our interest.
The present director-general is known personally to some in the House. He is a man of considerable breadth of experience and, as those who know him will agree, a man of quite unshakeable personal integrity. He is supported by a staff who are scrupulously careful in their role as defined by the directive. The staff do not and cannot receive public and detailed recognition for their work: but I do hope that among all today's controversies about what happened some time ago, the House will not treat lightly the debt that we owe to today's members of the Security Service. Unfortunately, one sometimes wonders, when listening to contributions by Opposition Members, what has happened to the old values.

Mr. Winnick: No one would dispute the need for a security service, especially in the fight against terrorism, and so on. I have previously paid tribute to the Security Service in that role. However, is there not a sharp distinction to be made between the legitimate work of a security service in a democratic society and otherwise? Miss Cathy Massiter, who worked for the MI5, said that the National Council for Civil Liberties was under active inquiries by MI5, and that anyone who was on the executive council of that organisation or who worked for it had a file in MI5, including, apparently my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), who, prior to coming to the House, was the legal officer of that organisation. While recognising that the Security Service overall plays an important role in safeguarding the security of our state, what possible justification can there be for such activities?

Mr. Waddington: Before the hon. Gentleman made those allegations, he must have known that I would do no more than other Ministers have done, whatever party they have belonged to, and whatever Government have been in power, and that is to observe the convention—the purpose of which is obvious to all of us—that Ministers do not allow themselves to be drawn into comments on allegations of that nature.

Mr. Heffer: I should like to draw the Minister's attention to a programme on Granada television on which he and I appeared many years ago, and on which he suggested that I and all members of the Tribune Group in those days were agents of the Soviet Union. I do not accept his position at all.

Mr. Waddington: I did not say anything of the sort. I remember that meeting clearly. It was in Rossendale town hall. During that meeting, I had cause to say that I doubted the complete conviction on the part of all members of the Labour party that our parliamentary democracy was the right form of government, and the hon. Gentleman was very cross with me—[Interruption.] I am only answering the hon. Gentleman. He was very cross with me. That is what happened.
The well-established policy of not commenting on the operation of the Security Service has been followed by successive Governments, but I can comment on the part of the motion of the hon. Member for Workington calling for the setting up of
a judicial enquiry to examine circumstances surrounding alleged attempts by officers of the security services to subvert the government of Lord Wilson of Rievaulx in the 1970s.
I can comment because the allegation was dealt with long ago—during the period in office of the previous Labour Government, whom the hon. Gentleman supported.
I have to remind the House of the statement by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), on 23 August 1977, which was referred to in the House on 8 October 1977 and is set out in the amendment on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind). During a reply to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), the hon. Member for Workington said that my hon. Friend had not read out the whole statement. Let me read it out now:
The Prime Minister has conducted detailed inquiries into the recent allegations about the Security Service and is satisfied that they do not constitute grounds for lack of confidence in the competence and impartiality of the Security Service or for instituting a special enquiry. In particular, the Prime Minister is satisfied that at no time has the Security Service or any other British intelligence or security agency, either of its own accord or someone's request, undertaken electronic surveillance in No. 10 Downing Street or in the Prime Minister's room in the House of Commons.
In the House on 8 December 1977 the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth also said—this is of some importance in view of press comment over the weekend:
My right hon. Friend
—meaning the former Mr. Harold Wilson, now Lord Wilson—
associated himself with the statement that I made".—[Official Report, 8 December 1977; Vol. 940, c. 1644.]
It is necessary to add only one thing. It is necessary because of some of the wilder comments made this afternoon about officers being beyond the law. No one is above the law in this country, and members of the Security Service are no more immune from prosecution than anyone else if they commit criminal offences.
The Security Service operates under the directive issued to the director-general by the then Home Secretary, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, in 1952. The directive was made public in paragraph 238 of Lord Denning's report and still applies today. It makes the director-general personally responsible to the Home Secretary for the proper and


efficient implementation of the tasks set out in the directive, and it is through that relationship that ministerial control is exercised. The director-general is expected to seek direction and guidance from the Home Secretary as to the way in which the service goes about its business. But with one exception, the Home Secretary does not concern himself with particular operations. That one exception is when an interception warrant is sought, when of course the Home Secretary must be given sufficient supporting information for him to judge whether the application comes within the established criteria. But in general the Home Secretary is not concerned with particular cases. As paragraph 6 of the directive makes clear:
Ministers do not concern themselves with the detailed information which may be obtained by the Security Service in particular cases, but are furnished with such information only as may be necessary for the determination of any issue on which guidance is sought.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the statement of 8 December 1977 with which, of course, I was associated. That statement refers to a detailed inquiry. I know the nature of that inquiry. A Minister of State in the Home Office—I make this point only to clarify the facts—is not briefed on security matters. What the Minister of State is reading has been supplied to him. That is true of all Ministers of State.
I am concerned about whether Wright's allegations were investigated at that time. They have been made more recently. They infuriate me because I stand by MI5. I know many of its members. They have served me well. I am angered that a small group under a man such as Wright, of little political intelligence, should now write a book saying that this sort of thing was taking place. I want the hon. and learned Gentleman to tell me not what was investigated then—I accepted that in good faith—but that Wright's allegations were investigated then. If they were not, surely they should be looked at afresh, or I, at least, was fooled at that time. I want the matter cleared up.

Mr. Waddington: I want to make absolutely clear the context in which I read that extract from Hansard and referred to that statement. In ordinary circumstances, no Minister would stand at the Dispatch Box and answer allegations about what is or what is not in a book which is or is not going to be published. The only reason why I read that statement is that I am in the rare position of being able to answer some of the allegations which have now been made in the press because a specific statement was made in the House about them. I do not put the matter higher than that. I am in no position to argue with the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) as to what is or what is not made known to a Minister of State in the Home Office. I am entitled to tell the whole House what the Prime Minister of the day told the House at the time about those allegations, which was precisely what I said this afternoon—that the allegations had been investigated and had been found wanting.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am grateful to the Minister. Given what I said about MI5, for which I accept full responsibility during my time as Minister, in the terms of the remit which we were given, I again ask: is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that he has found out that the

allegations—they are no more than allegations and it will all come out—made by Wright in a book were covered in 1977? That is all that I want to know.

Mr. Waddington: The House may or may not at some future time wish to return to some of these matters. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not know why hon. Members express such surprise. They would have been surprised if I, a Minister of State in the Home Office, was the first Minister of any Government to stand at the Dispatch Box to answer questions put in a debate of this nature about the contents of a book that has not yet been published. The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South may have his fun, but he knows what the answer has to be because it is that which would be given by any Minister of any Government.

Mr. Clive Soley: I understand what the Minister is saying, but, basically, it adds up to the fact that he does not know. We understand that. The powerful intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), speaking as a former Home Secretary, must carry a lot of weight. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman undertake to ask the Home Secretary in the near future to answer my right hon. Friend's question?

Mr. Waddington: I was not saying that I do not know, although the truth may well be that I do not know. I was giving the classic answer that, whether I had known or had not known, I certainly would not have disclosed the matter, even to the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South, whom I much admire, as he knows.
I was referring to the passage in the directive that explains that Ministers do not concern themselves with the detailed information which may be obtained by the Security Service in particular cases. There are good reasons for that policy. The Security Service is not, as some have alleged, in the business of obtaining information on behalf of the Government. It is there to protect the state against external and internal dangers, and must, as the directive makes clear, do this in a way that avoids any suggestion that it is concerned with any matter other than the defence of the realm as a whole. There must be no political bias or influence in its work. That is why the operational judgments must be for the director-general to make. If he gets them wrong, and the safety of the state is jeopardised or civil liberties unjustifiably infringed, he must answer to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Heffer: I am sorry to keep interrupting the Minister, but will he now explain who determines the internal enemies? Who lays that down? Surely that must be a political decision. If it is not, who says who are the internal enemies—a Labour Government or members of Cabinet?

Mr. Waddington: I am afraid that I must bore the hon. Gentleman by referring him to the statement made by Lord Harris of Greenwich, a Minister of the Labour Government in 1975, who gave the classic definition of
"subversion", which is by way of a direction to the Security Service. Subversion means:
activities which threaten the safety or well-being of the State, and which are intended to undermine or overthrow Parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means".


That definition was closely examined by the Home Affairs Committee in last year's inquiry into the Special Branch. The Committee agreed that the definition was broadly correct.
The director-general is personally responsible to the Home Secretary but it is also well established that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister concerns herself with major Security Service matters. The Maxwell Fyfe directive provided that the director-general must approach the Prime Minister on matters of supreme importance and delicacy; and my right hon. Friend amplified this role, in her statement on the Blunt case in November 1979, by stressing the Home Secretary's responsibility to inform the Prime Minister or make sure that the Prime Minister is informed, in that type of case. She added that, in practice, both the Home Secretary and she make a point of keeping in close touch with the director-general.
Some of those arguing for some form of external oversight—

Mr. Heffer: The enemy in the trade unions.

Mr. Waddington: I have been very generous in giving way. There is no point in the hon. Gentleman bawling from a sedentary position.
Some of those arguing for some form of external oversight seem to think that present arrangements for ministerial responsibility for these matters are static and uninformative. That is not so, and this Government can claim to have discharged their responsibilities to Parliament in as full and open a way as is consistent with the need to preserve national security—indeed, there has been greater openness under this Government than ever before.
On 21 November 1979, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made her statement on Blunt, deciding that it was right to confirm that Blunt was a Soviet agent, a fact of which previous Governments had been aware but had never informed Parliament. On 26 March 1981, the Prime Minister made a further statement on the implications of the Chapman Pincher book, "Their Trade is Treachery", indicating that the positive vetting procedures had not been reviewed since 1962 and that she had asked the Security Commission to review the security procedures and practices then followed in the public service and consider what changes were required.
In 1985, we came to Parliament and secured approval for the Interception of Communications Act which made unauthorised interception a criminal offence and, for the first time, provided a statutory and public framework for authorising practices of interception of communications which had, in fact, been carried out under the authority of Ministers of successive Governments for many years. That step hardly lends support to the story put about by some Labour Members that the Government have been unwilling to make any changes and have been less open even than their predecessors. The facts prove the reverse.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister answer a very simple question? Why is he delaying telling Parliament whether Mr. Pincher will be prosecuted for paying Mr. Wright for information which he knew was classified?

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that question as well. He would be the first to

rise in his wrath if anything was said which suggested that the decision to prosecute was not for the Attorney-General alone.
There was then the report to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the results of the inquiry by the Security Commission into Bettaney. She made a full statement on the commission's criticisms and said that she and the Home Secretary were determined to see that action was taken to remedy management weakness within the Security Service.
The present director-general has devoted a major part of his time to that management task, particularly in relation to personnel. Earlier this year he put forward a report which the Prime Minister made available to the Security Commission, and the Security Commission has informed my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of its approval of the more open style of management which the director-general has introduced throughout the service, and of the changes in procedure affecting the appraisal, posting and promotion of staff.
The commission also noted with approval that the vetting procedures were being improved, following the recruitment of more investigating officers, and that the division of responsibility between line management and the specialist personnel managers had been tackled and clarified. In short, the Security Commission considers that the director-general is to be congratulated on the way in which he has tackled the problems which it identified.
The record shows that this Government have been far more open and receptive to fresh ideas in this field of security than the Labour Government. The principle of ministerial responsibility has shown itself able to adapt to particular events and situations. Discussion is bound to continue, but we are not at present persuaded that any of the proposals for changes in the system so far put forward would provide marked advantages.
The public have a fairly clear view of these matters. They understand the need for a security service and they are, I believe, becoming impatient with those who wish to undermine that service by removing the confidentiality which must lie at its core. This is an area in which fair sounding compromises can be particularly dangerous. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary will maintain to the full their responsibility as the points of contact between the Security Service and this House. In a dangerous world we shall continue to do all that we can to preserve the integrity and the necessary confidentiality of that service.
Lastly, the motion calls for the repeal of official secrets legislation and its replacement by a new framework to protect official secrets and, in particular, official secrets in relation to national security.

Mr. Tony Banks: Can the Minister tell the House whether the security officers who gave information to Mr. West broke the law?

Mr. Waddington: I have not the slightest intention of being drawn into that matter for the reason that I gave a short time ago. All Opposition Members who think about it for one moment will understand why Ministers have said that, in all circumstances, it is wrong for them to be drawn into discussion about what is or is not correct—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Did they break the law?

Mr. Waddington: —about the various allegations made about the Security Service.
There is another reason why it is impossible for me to be forthcoming—it has already been stated. Whatever may be the sub judice law in Britain, we are still under the judge in Australia.

Mr. Tony Banks: But we are in England.

Mr. Waddington: We are now dealing with that part of the motion which calls for the repeal of official secrets legislation and its replacement by a new framework to protect official secrets, especially official secrets in relation to national security. We have to consider what that would entail.
I do not think that anyone seriously objects to section 1 of the Act, which is concerned essentially with spying, pure and simple. It is section 2 which has attracted the criticism, and it may be helpful if I remind the House of the background.
In 1971, the then Conservative Government appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Lord Franks to review the operation of section 2, and the committee's report recommended repeal and replacement of section 2 by an Official Information Act containing narrower and more specific provisions. The first category of information which the committee suggested should be protected was information relating to the defence or security of the realm, or to foreign relations or the currency or the reserves—information which had been classified on the ground that its authorised disclosure would cause serious injury to the interests of the nation.
Before any prosecution could have been undertaken, the responsible Minister would have had to confirm the classification personally, and the prosecution would have had to satisfy the court that the information fell within one of the prescribed categories and had been classified.
The committee also recommended that certain other categories of information should be protected if disclosed by a crown servant contrary to his official duty. These categories included information likely to be helpful in the commission of offences, all Cabinet documents irrespective of subject matter, information given to the Government by private individuals or concerns, or any information the disclosure of which was for private gain. The receipt of official information would have ceased to be an offence, but the unauthorised disclosure of such information would have remained one.
It was not until some six years after publication of the Franks report that the then Labour Government published, in July 1978, a White Paper setting out proposals for legislation, but when they did so their proposals were, broadly speaking, based on the Franks recommendations. I remind the House that the last part of today's motion suggests that new legislation should concentrate on matters relating to the nation's security. That reads rather oddly in view of the fact that both the Franks report and the Labour Government's White Paper made plain the obvious—that any replacement of section 2 would have to go far wider than national security and have, for instance, to guard against corruption and the commission of crime.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Minister is doing us a service by reminding us of what the Franks committee, of which I was a member, recommended. When, in October 1976, I announced that the Labour Government would follow the Franks report, the Attorney-General asked me to announce that he would not prosecute under section 2 of

the Official Secrets Act except under the classification of secret and above. That was a profound step and thus, under the Labour Government, de facto, the Attorney-General carried out a major part of the Franks recommendations. That was the only reason for my speaking as an expert witness for Mr. Ponting—his was not a security matter, as the Government made clear. I made it clear that that was why he should not have been prosecuted under the Act, although I do not say that he should not have been dealt with in some other way because I do not like people who leak. Will the Minister ensure that those facts are included in Ministers' rubric in future?

Mr. Waddington: That came out at the time, but the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly within his rights to put that on record. However important it may be, it was not the matter with which I was dealing.
I was giving the history of the establishment of the Franks committee, its report, that it considered that any offence should go wider than releasing information about national security and the fact that when the Labour Government left office in 1979 no legislation had been introduced to implement the recommendations of the Franks report.
Unlike the Labour Government, which sat on the Franks report, this Government acted and the House knows what happened. The Protection of Official Information Bill which would have repealed section 2 of the 1911 Act and replaced it with provisions based broadly on Franks got its Second Reading in another place, but it was clear that there was not sufficient agreement to enable it to proceed further.
That potted history illustrates the whole difficulty. While it is easy to say that section 2 should be repealed, nobody has yet put forward proposals which would give both proper protection to matters which must be kept secret and seem likely to command a sufficient measure of agreement. No doubt the hon. Member for Workington and others will keep on trying. I did not think much of his effort today. But I wish he and some of his colleagues would be sufficiently frank and generous to admit that this Government, unlike their predecessor, the last Labour Government, have already tried and should be given credit for it as they should also be given credit for the Interception of Communications Act and the other steps which they have taken in this immensely difficult field of security since 1979.

Mr. Clive Soley: My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has proved the substance of his motion well. Throughout his time spent on the issue he has shown, above all, first, that the Government have been incredibly inconsistent in their interpretation of the law and, secondly, the nonsense of the Official Secrets Act.
I would have been more impressed with the Minister's response if he had made it clear that the passage of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 was the result, not of a voluntary effort by the Government, but of a case at the Strasbourg court which forced the Government to act. I agree strongly with the Minister that the British public will not forgive people who undermine the effectiveness of the British security services. That is why the British public will not easily forgive the Government. Whatever else has been shown by this dreadful affair in


Australia, it is that the way in which the Government have managed this and every previous case has severely damaged confidence in the security services.
My hon. Friend showed the Government's inconsistency. We recognise that the Minister is not the Attorney-General, but he is a lawyer and knows well that he, like any other hon. Member, can say whether he thinks that the law has been broken. It is almost impossible to conclude other than that Mr. Chapman Pincher's efforts have involved a breach of the law. It is a matter for the Attorney-General whether to prosecute and he must make several judgments to reach that conclusion, one of which is whether the law was breached. No one can reasonably conclude from anything that has come within the public domain that the law has not been broken.
One good result may arise from this sorry saga and that is that no hon. Member can seriously believe that the present way of controlling the security services will continue for much longer. I doubt whether it will continue beyond this Government. The Prime Minister will probably have to stick to the present method, but no other Prime Minister, political party or Government is likely to continue with a system that has brought the security services into such disarray in recent years.
The Government have got themselves into an acute mess because they tried to stop Mr. Wright's book being published. Yet, both MI5 and MI6 knew that Chapman Pincher was writing a book with MI5 help two months before—Sir Robert Armstrong has said—the Government knew. We understand from Mr. Chapman Pincher that Mr. Wright was a co-author who received royalties. If that is the case, clearly the law is being interpreted inconsistently.
M15 and MI6 apparently released secret information without telling the Prime Minister. Sir Robert Armstrong is the principal adviser to the Prime Minister on security and intelligence matters, yet it appears that he did not know that information had been released. As he is the principal adviser to the Prime Minister, clearly we must assume that neither the Prime Minister nor the Home Secretary knew of that disclosure. If that is the case, what sort of accountability exists through Ministers to the House for the security services? The answer must be virtually none.
MI6 knew that Mr. Pincher's book would refer to allegations that Sir Roger Hollis'was a Soviet agent. Worse still, Sir Robert was told that the advance copy of Mr. Pincher's book was obtained
on conditions which made it impossible to take any action about it.
What does that imply and what did Ministers know about the way in which the copy was obtained? If they knew nothing, what sort of accountability exists through Ministers to the House?
The Government's actions have seriously damaged the security services and the way they work in the eyes of the public. Since 1979 the Government's approach has been a mass of confusion. Clive Ponting and Sarah Tisdall were treated differently. Cathy Massiter was treated differently again and there was an incredible mess over GCHQ. Few people knew how GCHQ operated until the Government tried to ban trade unions there. Now people throughout the world know more about the activities of GCHQ than ever before.
In 1979 the Prime Minister started by giving the House more information in advance and detailed information about the Blunt case. Yet in response to an intervention the Minister said that it would be wrong for Ministers to give detailed answers. In 1977, as Leader of the Opposition, she asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), then Prime Minister, for a statement on the bugging of Lord Wilson's office. Despite the fact that the Prime Minister, whom the Minister serves, asked for a full and detailed statement on the bugging of Lord Wilson's office in 1977, and in 1980 gave a detailed answer on Professor Blunt, the Minister has said that the Government do not want to give information.
As the Prime Minister and the Government got themselves into a series of confusing positions over Clive Ponting, Sarah Tisdall, GCHQ and others, they began to clam up. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington was absolutely right in saying that then the information came out in diverse ways, revealing in the worst possible way the contradictions and absurdities of the present legal position.
The Prime Minister has given up answering questions which could be answered simply. Some weeks ago a national newspaper carried a major story about the possible bugging of the office of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). The Conservative party leapt on that and used it as a red herring, but no Opposition Member ever argued that the office of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had been bugged. Our argument was that in some way the Prime Minister appeared to know about that in advance. There are several ways that she could have known about it. One way, as I said on one occasion, was through a perfectly normal conversation, perhaps with a solicitor in Australia or perhaps with a Conservative Member.
I must emphasise that when I wrote to the Prime Minister telling her what I had told the media, I made no allegations about the bugging of offices because I did not consider that that was likely to have happened. In my letter I wrote:
I said that I recognised there might be a perfectly conventional explanation, but another very real possibility is of course that the information came to you through the normal daily work of GCHQ in monitoring overseas communications where the question of security is concerned.
We all know from the previous debates on GCHQ that that is part of its normal work. If information relating to security was passed upwards in the normal way, and eventually came to the attention of the Prime Minister, that is one way in which she could have found out.
The answer that I received could have said that the Prime Minister obtained the information in a perfectly straightforward way by word of mouth, or it could have said that the Prime Minister obtained the information from the GCHQ tapes. That, again, would have been perfectly understandable, but the answer said:
The Government's policy on telephone tapping remains as set out in 1966 by the then Prime Minister, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx. Lord Wilson said he had given instructions that there was to be no tapping of the telephones of Members of Parliament. He said that that remained the policy of the Government and if there was a development which required a change in the general policy, he would, at such moment as seemed compatible with the security of the country, on his own initiative, make a statement in the House about it. I reaffirmed that this Government stood by that undertaking on 6 February 1980 and on 31 October 1983. The position remains the same today.


No one quarrels with that and no one asked that question. The letter gives no answer to the question of the GCHQ tapes. The easiest and simplest way for the Government to deal with that part of the question is to release that tape, if it exists. It would not cause any problems to any hon. Member and there is no reason why the tape should not be released.
We should be given more detailed answers, especially if the Prime Minister and the Government consider, as they appear to have considered in the past, that it is appropriate to give such information. Indeed, the Minister has made great play of the argument that the Government are prepared to do that.
What is to be done in future? I said that the mess that we are now in is largely of the Government's making and that it has done immense damage to the country's security services. But we must also look to the future and accept that no future Government will allow the present situation to continue. One of the greatest nonsenses is that the two security services—MI5 and MI6—have no statutory existence, yet are probably the best known security services in the world. It is time that we gave some attention to placing them on a proper statutory footing. If we could do that, we could then deal with some of the problems, which several Opposition Members have mentioned, such as how the security services should operate, whether they should operate outside the law, which of course they should not, and whether they should operate against trade unionists, the National Council for Civil Liberties, or any of the others. We could also talk about the guidelines that existed for such security services instead of pretending that those services do not exist and instead of having a system which, when it breaks down, is disastrous for the morale of those security services and indeed for security generally in Britain.
When I have spoken on Home Office matters relating to security and so on I have pointed out that in the 20th century the United Kingdom has allowed itself, for very understandable reasons, due primarily to two world wars, to become excessively obsessed with secrecy. In this country it is almost impossible to get to the truth of matters which are, or should be, in the public domain. That undermines the confidence that people have in the system. Worse, if there is a rumour about, such as that Lord Wilson's office was bugged, and no one can disprove it, it gathers pace. Whether it is true or not—I am not in a position to know that—my hon. Friend the Member for Workington is saying that a rumour which has been around for many years has never effectively been put down. It is our contention that it will not be put down until we have a system of considering such things which satisfies the public. We must be able to do that if we are not to have constant problems of this sort.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington said, the Official Secrets Act needs radical change. It needs to be underpinned by a freedom of information Act. That concept has received support from every significant sector of the House except for the Conservative party. That is the one party that resists moving towards, or giving public support to, a freedom of information Act. I exempt the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and one or two of his hon. Friends, who have spoken out in favour of such a measure.
Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act is absurdly and dangerously wide. The democratic and civil rights of the British people have been undermined by an excessive

obsession with secrecy resulting partly from two world wars, partly from Northern Ireland and partly from other issues that have troubled us from time to time. Section 2 is far too wide. It drags far too many people into the net. If it did not exist or if the wording of that section was more appropriate, the Government would not be in the mess that they are in with Mr. Wright.
We also need a Select Committee to deal with the security services. That is long overdue. I was about to say, as I suspect I heard sotto voce from behind me, that the Select Committee should not, in the Opposition's view, be composed of Privy Councillors.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Not only Privy Councillors.

Mr. Soley: I accept that gracefully. If we have confidence in our parliamentary system, we must have confidence in the hon. Members who are elected and the way in which they are selected to serve on committees. No one has said that it should be only Privy Councillors who serve on the Select Committees on Defence. Secret information is discussed in Select Committees, and they can go into secret session when it is necessary to do so.
Other countries such as Australia, Canada, the United States and several west European countries have confidence and trust in their elected representatives, and that enables them to carry out the discussions necessary to ensure that the security services operate effectively and efficiently, and at the same time act in a way which does not destroy or undermine the confidence of the public in their democratic and civil rights.

Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in some respects, opposition to such a Select Committee denotes a feeling that, although there should be every confidence in those who serve in the Security Service, there should not be the same feeling of confidence about hon. Members on either side of the House and that, therefore, in essence, hon. Members are not to be trusted with such matters?

Mr. Soley: That is precisely the trap that I am talking about. We are saying that our Members of Parliament, elected by the people, are not sufficiently trustworthy to do the job. All hon. Members, wherever they stand politically, have a duty to refute that. If people are given responsibility, they normally discharge it well. There are perfectly satisfactory safeguards, within the democratic system as it is operated in Britain, to ensure that the security services can operate effectively and efficiently under the system that we propose.
There must be someone to whom personnel in the security services can turn if they consider that they are being misused or have obtained some information which they consider they cannot pass on within the existing service. We should consider, say, an inspector general or an ombudsman for the security services. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, in another debate, that we should consider a parliamentary commissioner for civil rights. We certainly need someone to do the whistle-blowing operation for those who serve in the security services.
The Minister made much of Lord Harris's definition of subversion. During the passage of the Interception of Communications Bill, we said that the definition should be reconsidered. I understand the importance of Lord Harris's definition, and I do not rule it out of court. However, although I am not always the greatest supporter


of Lord Denning's interpretations, he came up with a very good definition of subversion. He said that it must mean the overthrow of the state by unlawful means. It is the unlawful part that should worry us. When allegations have been made to the effect that the security forces have been used in an inappropriate way against trade unionists, the NCCL or some other group, it is assumed that it is unlawful to challenge the Government. That idea must not be allowed to gain ground. A challenge to a Government should not be allowed if it is unlawful, threatens to bring down the Government by violence, or if there is criminal dishonesty, such as corruption, which is designed to undermine the stability of that Government. Such challenges would be unlawful, but other challenges would not be.
There is a strong case to be made for the motion, and it was put very powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington. The Minister was unable to answer all of the questions. I do not criticise that, as I realise that the Home Secretary or Prime Minister should have been here to answer them. However, this debate will not end today; it will continue until the security services are put on a much better footing in the House and until we have a much better way of dealing with the sort of problems that we have faced recently.

Sir Ian Percival: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) should have put the weight of the Opposition Front Bench behind the attempt made by other hon. Members to make my hon. and learned Friend the Minister say something that he should not say. My hon. and learned Friend, however, dealt with those questions in the only manner open to him, and did so with firmness and dignity. I for one appreciated that the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) made his point and was then good enough to show that he accepted that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister had to give the answers that he gave. The hon. Member for Hammersmith should know that, if he was a Minister, he would have to answer all questions relating directly to security in the same way as my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has just done.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I render unto the Minister just as one might render unto Caesar, in that he is doing his job, and I have no complaints about that. However, he prayed in aid the 1977 statement. New allegations have been made by that man in Australia, for whom I have no time. They are serious allegations, and I just want to know whether they were taken into account. I feel very strongly about the fact that a small group of men like that in MI5 should have acted in such a way.

Sir Ian Percival: The right hon. Gentleman made his point clearly in his previous intervention. I thought that he then acknowledged that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister could only have given the answers that he gave. Perhaps I misinterpreted the right hon. Gentleman's gestures, but it seemed clear to me that he was doing that. Those who read this debate will realise that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister could only give the answers that he gave with such firmness and dignity.
There were many tempting items in the speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith. He referred to the matter

that we debated last Wednesday, but he seemed to overlook the fact that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that we were not closing the door on the issue, and may wish to come back to it in a calmer atmosphere. We regard the position as being far from fixed. Indeed, it is the oldest question in history: who guards the guards, or who watches the watchers? One day, someone will find the answer, or at least a better answer, and we shall all embrace it with open arms.
Let us by all means return to that issue, but it is sufficiently important for it to be debated on its own. Even in this short debate, the references to it show some of the difficulties that will have to be met. Some say that Privy Councillors should be involved, while others say that they should not be. Some say that there must be secrecy, and others say that it is not necessary. I accept that all those points must be debated, but not in this atmosphere.
My criticism of the speech made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will be brief, as I wish to be constructive. However, I thought that in many respects what he said was deplorable—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Havers?

Sir Ian Percival: No. That was cheap and nasty. I shall have something to say about those comments, and I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman's immediate reaction should be that I might have something to say about his sordid and squalid remarks concerning my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) is now quoting me.

Sir Ian Percival: I am, and I am turning the hon. Gentleman's comments back on him. It is deplorable that the hon. Gentleman should have speculated to that extent. It is also deplorable to use the privileges accorded to the House to say things about people when they may long to have the opportunity to clear up the matter in the courts. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman had been a Member of Parliament for long enough to know that he should be more careful. It is deplorable to use this subject for scoring party political points. However, the hon. Gentleman apparently cannot resist that.
The hon. Member for Workington accused my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General of behaving in a sordid and squalid fashion. When the hon. Gentleman looks at his speech, he may well conclude that it was his attack that was sordid and squalid. My right hon. and learned Friend has served the House faithfully and well, and with a dignity that some others may well wish to try to emulate. We can all differ, but not in the way that the hon. Gentleman did.
I should like to start my next remarks on common ground. There cannot be any argument among us about the fact that if any of us received information in confidence we should never publish it without permission. The critical words are "without permission". What we learn as lawyers, Members of Parliament or, a fortiori, as an employee of the security services should not be divulged without permission. The hon. Member for Workington obviously agrees with that, because in several of his recent speeches he has put it even higher than that. He says that it is treachery for an ex-member of the security services to publish information received in that capacity without permission. Those last two words must always be there—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: For money.

Sir Ian Percival: The critical words are "without permission". I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman in that regard.
The next part of his argument is that there are many cases in which either we should not have given permission, or we should have prosecuted. But he is not being consistent in this case. He says that we should have prosecuted other cases beforehand. I have just realised that I have fallen into the error of not drawing a distinction between prosecution and civil proceedings. But the hon. Gentleman argues that we should not have taken civil proceedings in this case. From the start, his aim has been to destroy our chances of preventing publication of information, although he acknowledges that publishing it is treachery. The hon. Gentleman must consider that to be an inconsistency.
I do not concede that permission was granted where it should not have been, because I do not know the facts. However, if it has been given and it should not have been, that is a fit matter for discussion because, ex hypothesi, the material is in the public domain and we can all have our say as to whether permission should or should not have been granted. There may be differences of opinion as to whether civil or criminal proceedings should have been taken in previous cases. However, surely to goodness, there can be no question about what should have been done in this case.
The Wright case involves a man who was in the service who is bound by his oath. He is publishing for money—without permission—the information that he obtained in the service. By the definition of the hon. Member for Workington, he is engaging in treachery. Should we say, "Never mind, we will not prosecute this time because there might have been errors."? I do not accept that there were errors. I do not know the facts and I will not speculate. However, even if there was fault to find in previous decisions, should we say "Here we have a case"—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Ah, yes.

Sir Ian Percival: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would remember that he had an hour in which to address the House. I am trying to make my comments in less time.
By common consent, Wright is engaging in treachery for money, yet should we not take proceedings against him? That is ludicrous, especially when we realise that he has moved outside our jurisdiction so that we cannot deal with him here. He knows better than anyone that if he tried to publish here, the odds are that civil proceedings would have been commenced against him and he would have been prosecuted. However, he knows that we cannot do that now.
Another feature of the case is that the hoohah of the past weeks has destroyed confidence. Confidence is really destroyed when someone from the inside engages in treachery. Wright is breaching confidences given him by his fellow members of the service. Confidence is destroyed when those working in the service can no longer rely on their colleagues not taking the kind of action that Wright has taken. The fact that Wright's actions received so much support from politicians on the Opposition Benches must also do much to destroy the confidence of those in the service.
What are we trying to do in Australia? We are asking for the assistance of the courts of a friendly country to stop

a man who, by common consent, wants to engage in treachery for profit. I would hope that if a friendly country—or indeed any country—came to us to protect itself in similar circumstances, we would have a ready ear to listen to that country. However, it is not simply our security that is at stake. Opposition Members seem to have lost sight of the fact that it is the present Labour Government of Australia, who are not in the business of helping the British Government—not Mr. Gough Whitlam who has no reason to be that pleased with our actions—who have put their senior civil servant before the court to say that, in the Government's opinion, Australian security interests are at issue as well. He has said that there is a danger to Australian security interests. I would not be surprised if there is not more reference to that before the proceedings are ended.
It is almost unbelievable that Opposition Members can express views about the case without taking into account the fact that the Australian Government have had their senior civil servant give evidence on oath to state that Australian security interests are at issue. In such circumstances, it is extraordinarily inconsistent of the hon. Member for Workington not to separate certain matters. The Peter Wright case must be considered separately from the other cases. We must consider what that man is trying to do and, by our common definition, he is indulging in treachery for profit.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has misunderstood the body of my speech. He must consider Wright's motive. Wright does not believe that he has been treacherous because he cites the precedents of others who have been allowed to go to print. We are considering Wright's view and position and the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech is based on the wrong premise.

Sir Ian Percival: The hon. Gentleman had an hour in which to state his case. I am not mixing up anything. We must clarify these issues. The question here is whether someone in the secret service may publish for money information gained in the secret service.. The hon. Member for Workington has said that, prima facie, that is treachery.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is misquoting me.

Sir Ian Percival: Very well, if the hon. Gentleman did not say that—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. and learned Gentleman can read my speech tomorrow.

Sir Ian Percival: I gave the hon. Gentleman credit for saying that.
However, I do not think that he would go so far as to say that he would agree that anyone with such confidential information is entitled to publish for profit. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman would say that for a moment. That is exactly what Mr. Wright is trying to do. Mr. Wright cannot be the judge of whether he has a motive to justify actions that people in his position are not allowed to take. That is a very dangerous approach to the matter and one that I would not have expected to hear from the hon. Member for Workington, as that is unsustainable and unworthy.
I urge the House to consider the case in Australia on its own. If we do that, there can be only one answer. It was


right and necessary to take proceedings, whatever had happened before. We can only hope that right will prevail and that the publication—[Interruption.] We can only hope that what should happen will be the right outcome and that the book will not be published.
I urge Opposition Members to consider the fact the some people have had a lot of fun speculating about the case. In the course of today's debate and in other debates, other subjects have been raised that deserve further consideration. However, we must put the case in Australia into the right perspective and we should stop playing party politics with national security. I urge Opposition Members to re-examine their position. In the light of day, when emotions are cooler, how can Opposition Members justify setting out with an overriding desire to ensure that the Government fail in an action in a foreign country?

Mr. Michael Foot: I shall come to what I consider to be the core of the speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival), but first I must make it clear to him that at no time in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) or at any time during the proceedings have the Opposition been engaged in any party political fight—[Interruption.] It is clear, if the confessions and boasts of anyone are justified, that there is one person who was engaged in a party political fight of the most outrageous kind and that is Mr. Peter Wright himself and some of his associates. If what Mr. Wright says is true, they were engaged in a treasonable attempt to attack the Government of the day.
The Minister's speech touched on some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington but did not answer the central question. The right hon. and learned Member for Southport had no right to say that the question had been answered. The question is, what have the Government done about the recent revelations made by Mr. Wright? I do not know whether those revelations are true but they deal with what happened in the days of the Government of Harold Wilson. All the Minister did was quote from what was said by the previous Labour Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan). I am sure that when he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) conducted their inquiries at that time they listened carefully to what they were told by the security services and, of course, they conducted a proper inquiry and took the proper action of coming to the House to state the position as they knew it. At that time, among other things, they did not know about the claims of Mr. Peter Wright, who was a long-time member of the Security Service. The Minister and the right hon. and learned Member for Southport have not attempted to answer that question. I would have thought, whatever differences we may have on these matters, that all of us could agree that, if Mr. Peter Wright's accusations are correct, it is a serious matter.
The security services have a greater interest in getting the matter examined and dealt with than anybody else, because otherwise the slur will hang over the modern secret service that it engaged in a treasonable conspiracy against the Government of the day, in breach of its undertakings, just as history shows that the secret service did engage in

such a treasonable outrage at the time of the Zinoviev letter. If anybody reads the records now he will see that the way in which the secret service behaved in 1924 was palpably wrong according to its undertakings. Today it would also be a monstrous scandal if Mr. Peter Wright's charges are correct. Therefore, the charges must be examined. They have not yet been examined. The Minister has come to the House today and had to confess—I do not blame him—that there has not been any examination.
The motion argues—I certainly agree with it—that there must be a proper examination. We propose a judicial inquiry, where a judge is appointed to look into it. It would have to be a secret inquiry because I do not believe that we can have a full-scale public inquiry into the operations of the secret service. If my hon. Friend the Member for Workington was asking for that, I do not think it is right. In any case, if the Government do not like the exact form of the inquiry we are asking for, it is their business to come forward with an alternative.
This matter will not go away. These are serious charges, and the Government have less right than anybody to say that they do not take any notice of Mr. Peter Wright's charges. If Mr. Peter Wright is doing sufficient damage to the Security Service by the publication of this book on the other side of the world, then, in heaven's name, surely the Government cannot say that they will take no notice.
I might be able to say that I do not give a damn about what Mr. Wright says about anything, which is probably my considered view, just as it is my view about Mr. Chapman Pincher. However, the Government have thought it necessary to have the whole process of a prosecution on the other side of the world which has made fools of our eminent civil servants. That contraption has had to be wheeled on to deal with Mr. Wright's accusations, so it is impossible for the Government to shelter in the way in which the right hon. and learned Member for Southport so ill advised them to do. The Government have said that it is an important case. They are prepared to spend large sums of taxpayers' money to present their case. When part of that case—not all of it—revolves around the question whether the charges about a conspiracy in 1974 were correct, there has to be an examination. If the Government do not agree to that now, they will have to do so at some later stage.
One of the most objectionable features of the issue is that it is inextricable from secret service operations. I am not complaining. Secret service operations have to be kept secret and they cannot be discussed at every available opportunity. However, occasionally inquiries are made by the Government and one important inquiry was made by the present Government into the case of Sir Roger Hollis; in fact, I believe that two or three inquiries were made. The last inquiry came up with a clean sheet for Sir Roger Hollis. The Prime Minister, quite rightly, made a statement to the House saying that Sir Roger Hollis was cleared. I accepted that, as did the House. I believe that every decent citizen of this country accepted that, in those circumstances.
Therefore, what in heaven's name were the Government playing at in the court in Australia when they tried to smudge that issue? I know that there is some legal excuse for it, but the common, ordinary, sensible people do not always understand obstruse legal obfuscations. It was said in the court that the case against Sir Roger Hollis was to be accepted. I know that that does not mean that


the Government are saying that he is guilty. However, the Government have no right anywhere other than in the House to put any new charge against him. If there is any new charge or suspicion against Sir Roger Hollis, the Prime Minister has a special duty to come to the House and say what it is.
Until that happens, the previous statement of the Prime Minister stands. It would be a gross injustice to the memory of Sir Roger Hollis, his family and those associated with him if such rumours should be peddled and if the Government did not take clear steps to knock them on the head as they sought to do a few years ago when the charges were made by Mr. Pincher and a few others.

Ms. Clare Short: Obviously my right hon. Friend has some knowledge of Sir Roger Hollis and the family and feels for their distress. I have no such knowledge and that must be typical of most of the population. The request my right hon. Friend makes to the Government to clear one family is an impossible task when the people have no confidence in the Government's oversight of our security services. The only way in which people such as Sir Roger Hollis and his family can be secure is when, if the Government say that we have a sensible security service and that it is under control, it is believed. At the moment, whatever they say is not believed.

Mr. Foot: I understand my hon. Friend's argument. However, I am in favour of the proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington. There should be a new method of surveillance over the secret service because these events have made that essential, not only in the interest of Sir Roger Hollis but in the interest of others. The well-paid vultures are happy to make charges against the dead, whether it is Sir Roger Hollis or others. They believe that once people are dead they can make any charge they wish, make any kind of money they like out of it and make the accusations in the wildest possible terms. That is most unjust, and in the interests of fair play and justice and also in the interests of the security services the Government should take steps to try to protect the dead.
A major revelation by Mr. Peter Wright relates to the attack on the Labour Government. That must be cleared up. However, there are other so-called revelations. Mr. Wright is supposed to have said that when he was in the security services they engaged in a conspiracy to murder President Nasser. I should be bitterly concerned if a British Government agency had engaged in the preparation of acts of terror. It would be an outrage if the security services were told in 1956 by Sir Anthony Eden and the Government of the day that they could prepare a plan for the assassination of President Nasser. I hope that the charge that the British Government gave instructions to engage in an act of terror can be repudiated. That is why there should be a proper investigation of these matters.
I was in Cairo a few days ago, before these revelations were made. Heaven knows what injury they will do to the future operations of the British security services. They must not engage, either in this country or elsewhere, in illegal acts, in particular in criminal acts, because eventually it comes out into the open and when that happens it can do appalling damage to the security of the state.
That is happening in the United States. The exposure of the arms sales to Iran, behind the back of Congress and

of those with responsibility for these matters after a section of the security services had been given orders by somebody, has wrecked United States foreign policy in the middle east. Many of the worst acts of terror have been carried out with Iranian money and Iranian backing. The Iranians helped to kill the previous President of Egypt, and I have no doubt that many other killings have been carried out by them.
If the United States security services are prepared to engage in such operations, we should be all the more determined to keep our security services out of them. It would do nothing but harm to the effectiveness of the security services if they were to engage in such manoeuvres and such trickery. This squalid business should be cleared up in the interests of the security services, and that cannot be done effectively unless that part of the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington which relates to a judicial inquiry is adopted. A judicial committee would be the best body to carry out such an examination.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I hope that in his remarks about 1956 the right hon. Gentleman is not giving credence to Mr. Gough Whitlam's allegations relating to events that took place long before he held public office and for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

Mr. Foot: I am saying nothing against Mr. Gough Whitlam, although I should examine what he has said on this and other matters. I am referring to what Mr. Wright says in his book. Mr. Wright says that he engaged, with others, in a treasonable conspiracy in this country and that MI5 or MI6 engaged in the preparation of an act of terror to murder the President of the republic of Egypt. If that is the truth, it should be examined. If it is a lie, let it be exposed. But if it is the truth, or if there is any element of truth in it, I and, I should have thought, every decent citizen in this country would want our security services to be cleaned up.
I do not agree with all that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington does. However, it would help to improve the effectiveness of the future operations of the security services if this motion were to be passed and if the Government were to act upon it.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I am pleased to be following the former Leader of the Opposition. If he has done nothing else, he has livened up our proceedings this afternoon, which I felt were in danger of achieving the remarkable result of making the exciting subjects of security and espionage excruciatingly boring. He asked a few pertinent questions with which I shall deal later.
The speech of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was a strange and curious mixture of tedium and hysteria. However, it contained a few perceptive passages and it is to those and to the motion itself to which I shall refer. The motion breaks down into three main parts. It calls attention to the
management and operation of the security services".
Just about everybody in the world seems to have been doing that lately.
The most interesting comments on the management and operation of MI5 were made in the 1985 report of the Security Commission. It highlighted many management weaknesses, many of which we are told, and believe, have to some extent been remedied by the present director


general. However, it is germane to ask why there is such a sharp difference between the management of MI5 and that of MI6. Almost all the criticism that one hears of the security services zeros in on MI5, whereas MI6 appears to have a relatively trouble-free and criticism-free record. There is a lot to be learnt by looking in detail at the comparisons, but there is no time to do so today—whether those comparisons relate to selection, management methods or the lack of introspection in MI6, which is a comparatively open organisation in the sense that it mixes and mingles with other people in the world of foreign policy, whereas MI5 personnel are so hunkered down in their bunker that sometimes quite extraordinary things seem to be able to go wrong without anybody taking much notice.
If I understand correctly the hon. Gentleman's main criticism of the management of the security services it is that at times they are outside political control. That also seemed to be the main point of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). The second part of the hon. Gentleman's motion highlights that criticism most dramatically. It calls for a judicial inquiry into the allegations relating to the Government of Lord Wilson. The most interesting intervention this afternoon was that of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) who asked a question to which no satisfactory answer has been given.
There is no need to worry about this matter if the 1977 statement that was read out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State applies precisely to the alleged events. However, if that statement does not cover those allegations, it is a completely different ball game. I, too, should like a judicial inquiry to be held if that matter has not been covered in any way.
I know nothing about these matters and I make only one comment. It is almost inconceivable that any operation of the kind that seems to have been alleged could have been carried out on a completely unauthorised, freelance basis. One only has to think of the mechanics of an operation of that kind. To get into a former Prime Minister's residence without authorisation and set up the technical equipment and then to take the tapes away and have them read, analysed and stored at headquarters enters the realms of speculation and fantasy, as does the original allegation. Nevertheless, there is an unanswered question which the right hon. Gentleman exposed in a devastating way and at some stage we need an answer.
More interesting about the management of the security services is the issue that we touched on at great length in the debate on 3 December. There is no point in going over the same ground again, but I want to comment on two things that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in his fine speech on that occasion.
First, my right hon. Friend's main objection to the proposal for some sort of oversight body was that such a body would have to be inside the barrier of secrecy. He said that it would be a constitutional contradiction because
if it is inside the barrier, it cannot communicate its findings convincingly to those who remain outside." —[Official Report, 3 December 1986; Vol. 106, c. 942.]
On reflection, I did not find that part of my right hon. Friend's argument convincing simply because the Security Commission frequently goes inside the barrier and then

comes out with a report on what has gone on, some of which is put into the public domain in a report to Parliament and parts of which are not. The report on the Bettaney affair is a classic example of that. That report took us all well inside the barrier of secrecy, but the published document, which took us some way inside, nevertheless also contained two unpublished annexes which, presumably, took us still further inside. I hope that when we return to the debate on oversight my right hon. Friend will reconsider the views that he expressed on that area.
Secondly—here I have more sympathy with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, particularly as my views on the matter are changing—my right hon. Friend argued convincingly that ultimately the management of the security services must depend on somebody reporting to a Minister. The more one considers the idea of a Select Committee of Privy Councillors, or, in the view of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), non-Privy Councillors as well, reporting to somebody other than the Home Secretary or the responsible Minister, the more doubtful the edifice becomes. If we are to have an efficient oversight body—that is surely first prize—it must be a body that reports to Ministers. That is a theme for a future debate on the oversight issue.
The motion calls for reform of the law on official secrets and, in particular, for consistency in the application of the law. I can only say "Hear, hear, and amen" to that. Any logical look at the problem shows that the Official Secrets Act is in a mess and the Government's recent efforts to be consistent in their handling of such cases clearly has not succeeded. Ask any man in the street, let alone any Member of this place, and no one will pat the Government on the back for their consistency in handling the Wright case and previous incidents, including the books.
In making the simple point that the Government have been inconsistent, instead of waiting for most of us to say, "Hear, hear", the hon. Member for Workington shot off into the realms of the most extraordinary demons, hobgoblins and fantasies. Although one or two of the things that he said may have contained a glimmer of truth, most of them were wildly over the top and should never have been said in a speech in the House.
The recent arguments about the security services have done much more harm than good to the morale and efficiency of the services, but at the end of the day perhaps one good thing will emerge. Instead of continuing to rake over the dead leaves of the past, we may start to look to the future to make sure that such blunders, errors and inconsistencies are much less likely to happen again. The service will never be error-proof, but with a greater parliamentary input than we have had so far, with an oversight body which I am sure will come one day, we shall soon have a better and more effective Security Service.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Truth is stranger than fiction and the history of these matters from the Philby case through to the revelations of Mr. Wright provides a mixture of stories better and more fascinating than those in many novels, some of them written, as has been pointed out, by the practitioners of this very activity of security and espionage.
The almost Victorian melodramatic tones with which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) opened the debate were not needed to draw our


attention to some of the problems. He sounded as though he could take a good part in a pantomime at this season of the year, given the sheer tone of malignant horror-mongering in which he managed to engage. The truth is serious enough not to need that and I must differ from the hon. Gentleman in some respects, even though I shall say later why I will advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the motion.
First, I did not agree with the conclusion or form of the hon. Gentleman's attack on the Attorney-General, who has succeeded, where others have failed, in distinguishing his position in standing firm for accuracy and honesty at several points in recent events. I might have wished, and indeed have argued, that he should have given up his office in doing so, but the manner of his conduct in no way justifies the tone of what the hon. Gentleman said about him.
Secondly, I did not like the way in which the hon. Gentleman has used the Order Paper so indiscriminately to list the names of large numbers of people and, in particular, I did not like the way in which he developed his attack on Mr. Arthur Martin, for whose record of service in the security services Britain has particular reasons to be grateful. Indeed, he was dismissed from the service in circumstances which still give rise to many of the questions at the heart of the debate.
The Minister of State's reply held a note of complacency which I thought had begun to be dispelled when the Home Secretary spoke earlier and said that the door was still open to further consideration. Indeed, the Conservative Members who have spoken today have themselves said that they see the door as still open as we look for a way of establishing some decent scrutiny of the security services which can help to deal with some of the problems about which we are all concerned.
That same complacency is to be found in the amendment on the Order Paper, welcomed by the Minister, proposed by some Conservative Members, none of whom are present in the Chamber and all of whom have absented themselves during most of the debate. That amendment lays particular stress on the statement made by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) on 8 December 1977, and it misses the point in two ways: because it does not deal with what the statement fails to talk about—what happened in places other than 10 Downing street and the Prime Minister's room in the House of Commons; and because it fails to recognise that on several occasions in recent history Prime Ministers, including the present one, have appeared at the Dispatch Box and made statements about which there is now every good reason to have considerable doubt.
I should say that I do not believe that the Prime Minister was at fault in some of the errors that occurred in her statement at the Dispatch Box at the conclusion of the Blunt affair, or indeed the statement she made after that. In some cases, errors or misleading aspects can be pointed to based on the briefing she was given. I hope that we can get rid of the complacency and recognise on both sides that there is a real problem.
If one looks at what can happen to the security services, it is obvious that if there is not some way of intensifying the effectiveness of oversight, a number of different problems can emerge. One is that, in an atmosphere of complacency, treason can flourish. We have had that long list of traitors—Philby, Blunt, Bettaney and the smaller fry at lower levels—and in every case it is possible to

point to extensive complacency without which such people could not have operated and could not have continued to hold the responsible positions that they did. An atmosphere of complacency contributes to outright incompetence in the security services, such as that which allowed an absence of positive vetting in MI5 of the kind to which the Security Commission drew attention after the Bettaney case. That simply could not have gone on if anyone beyond Ministers had been regularly reviewing the effectiveness of the services and questioning Ministers so to encourage them to ask the right questions of those who were responsible to them. Complacency can breed many problems in the security services.
Secondly, the absence of scrutiny can preserve a climate of opinion completely divorced from that to be found in the world outside. The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) pointed out that that may be a greater tendency in MI5 in its particularly enclosed world than in the intelligence services. It is easier to take an older example. It is the kind of climate which allowed Philby just before the war to establish, successfully, cover for being recruited to the service on the basis of his pro-Fascist connections, such as his involvement in the Anglo-German Society of that time. Such was the distorted climate of opinion in the service at that time that it proved not only to be an acceptable cover then, but helped to defend him against criticism and suspicion at later stages. It is now contended that during the war a considerable group within the service continued to believe that the real battle they were fighting was against the Soviet Union and they were much distracted from the war against Fascism in which Britain was engaged.
Distinct from what was going on in the real world, that climate of opinion was allowed to remain in the security services. One sees the same danger at the time of the alleged events surrounding the Wilson Government, to which I shall refer again, of the possibility that there may have been within the security services people who somehow believed that, because a Labour Government had come to power, the end of the world had arrived. I am opposed to Labour Governments and in favour of preventing them from happening and of making sure that they cannot pursue their more foolish policies by voting those policies down—as we were able to do when we had the political power. But Britain is a democracy, and if the people elect a Labour Government, even under our distorted electoral system, it is not the business of those who work for Government to look for ways to get rid of them or to discredit them. The possibility that there may have been a climate of opinion in some quarters in MI5 which held that the presence of a Labour Government justified the taking of illegal actions is extremely worrying. That possibility is generated when there is insufficient scrutiny of the security services.
There are other dangers that arise in the absence of scrutiny. They include the possibility that actions approved by the Executive but not by Parliament may be undertaken. That has been a problem in the United States and is now being examined by Congress which has the machinery to do so. Congress is examining the pursuit of a policy in clear defiance of declared Government policy of not supplying arms to Iran.
We may imagine that such things cannot happen here, but of course such a thing did happen in the immediate aftermath of the war. It was not public knowledge and was certainly not known in Parliament that British forces were


involved in assisting in the parachuting into Albania of supporters of the exiled and deposed king of Albania. Had that been known to anybody, some questions might have been asked about what happened to those people because, of course, when they arrived in Albania the security authorities there knew perfectly well when and where they would land; they had been informed of that by Mr. H. A. R. Philby. He was at the heart of the operation. It was perhaps the least noticed but the most evil of his acts of treachery that he condemned those people to death because he knew about their departure and communicated the information to the Albanian Government, who were and are ruthless. The fate of those people is now well known.
That action took place under a Labour Government and was designed deliberately to destabilise a Communist Government in Albania. The Executive approved and undertook that action knowing that it would be unlikely to obtain parliamentary approval. That is a dangerous kind of action to undertake and is one of the reasons why there must be better scrutiny. Equally dangerous in the absence of scrutiny is the possibility that actions not approved by anybody outside the service can more easily take place. That is because no questioning takes place. The Maxwell Fyfe directive rather conveys the flavour, "Don't call us, we'll call you." It gives the impression that Ministers are to be told of things when the service determines that they need to know. Of course Ministers can ask questions, but it has always been my submission—one which the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth accepted when I put it to him during the debate in 1979—that Ministers are less likely to ask questions if nobody is asking them questions. That is the danger in the present arrangements.
If actions are undertaken by the security services without the approval of anybody outside the services, either by the service as a whole engaging in freelance activity or by groups within it doing so, then the horrifying Pandora's box is open and that is where we come to the allegations about what went on in the Wilson Government. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) said—he was the Home Secretary at the time—he was never informed of any such action, and if it took place it must have been illegal because it was not authorised as it should have been. As my right hon. Friend also said, it would have been the product of a diseased mind to imagine that such action was necessary or desirable. It is an utterly monstrous proposition to say that any such action should be undertaken against an elected Government.
Of course, there is a world of difference if the security services communicate with the appropriate Minister if they have reason to believe that a member of the Government presents a security risk. That is not impossible: it can happen and there must be a mechanism for dealing with it. But that is a long way from the happenings now being alleged during the years of the Wilson Government.

Ms. Clare Short: What the hon. Gentleman says has major implications. He says that if a member of the Government is a security risk it is the duty of the security services to communicate that to the Government. The logic of that statement is that if the security services think the Prime Minister is a security risk they should check and

communicate. Are the security forces entitled to supervise and check and report on members of the Government? The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to say that somehow they can supervise Ministers but not the Prime Minister, because if he says that he is not consistent.

Mr. Beith: There are ways in which it could come to the notice of the security services that, heaven forbid, the Prime Minister was an agent of a foreign power. But the proposition is so unlikely because of the many checks and balances in existence that it would require a fairly major effort on the part of any security service to contemplate that it was the case. If it were, it would be their duty to report that to the appropriate authorities.

Ms. Clare Short: That is what they did.

Mr. Beith: That is a long way from what is alleged to have happened. It is alleged that Harold Wilson was being framed, that he was being burgled in an attempt to establish incriminating evidence, and that when such evidence was not found it was manufactured and communicated to the outside world by a variety of groups. Those are allegations of monstrous activity and if they have any weight or credibility they deserve to be examined. I do not think that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth was in possession of the full substance of the allegations when he made his statement to the House. For that reason, the matter must be looked at again, but at this stage we do not know whether it will go to a full judicial inquiry. If the motion goes to a vote, one of the reasons why I shall advise my hon. Friends to vote for it is that I think the matter should be looked at again.

Mr. Alan Williams: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about having to look at it again, but after we have had the result of the court case. That is because the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General will have to account for themselves to the House. My advice to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is that we should not have a vote tonight but should wait until we have statements from the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General.

Mr. Beith: There is wisdom in that advice, that we should come back to this matter as soon as the court case is over. The matter is in the hands of the hon. Member for Workington, but this might not be the occasion to press it to a vote.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I accept that.

Mr. Beith: These issues are so grave that some further attempt must be made to establish whether or not there is any substance in them. That brings me to one aspect of the Wright case about which it would be proper to speak even though the court case is going on. It is that, whatever criticisms we make of Wright—and I make a number—one of his motivations was that he believed things had been brushed under the carpet and he embarked on a crusade. He believed that matters had not been brought to a head and that deception was being allowed to continue. However much we criticise his subsequent actions, we must recall that he sought to interest Conservative Members, including the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, in his allegations and to try to get them by various routes to the Prime Minister.
There is a crusading aspect to all this, and although it does not vindicate his subsequent actions it was serious in itself and leads me to remind the Minister that at the very


least there ought to be a proper internal mechanism by which an officer who believes that something is seriously wrong can ventilate his grievance. That was one of the issues discussed by the Security Commission and the Prime Minister spoke about it in her statement to Parliament. I gathered from the Home Secretary when he replied to an intervention by me in the debate on 3 December that it is still under discussion and is one of the aspects of the Security Commission report which has not been fully resolved. Something must be done about that.
I see that in the end as linking naturally to some external oversight, because people are likely to have more confidence in an internal inspector-general, or whatever he may be, if he reports, as does the Ombudsman, ultimately to some external or parliamentary body. If there is no internal mechanism, that is yet another reason why people may believe that they have an excuse to go outside. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) that no one can be allowed to be the sole judge of whether he has sufficient reason to break the confidence which is enjoined upon him in his position as an officer or former officer of the Security Service. He cannot be the sole judge, but if he has no other recourse and nowhere else to go, he is left in a very unsatisfactory position. I speak not only of Wright, but of very many officers who have found themselves in this position—[Interruption.]

Sir Ian Percival: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the officer should be his own judge of when to speak? That really is a slippery slope.

Mr. Beith: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman was unable to hear me because of the noise behind me. I was agreeing with his statement that no security officer should be the sole judge of whether what is on his conscience or mind should be brought into the public domain. That cannot be right. Therefore, we must look for other mechanisms whereby people can ventilate grievances in a proper manner and feel that their case is being heard.
There are many things we have discussed today to which we will have to return. The Minister of State said in his speech that the public understand perfectly well what is at stake, and that they know and have a basic feeling about what is right and wrong in these matters. That is so, but the public at large also can see the total inconsistency of the position of the Government. The public can see that there is no distinction, as the Government pretend to draw, between someone who publishes a book in his own name, disclosing secrets learnt in his office, and someone who supplies that information, whether for money or not—in this case, it was for money—to another author to be included in a book which is subsequently described as being co-authored by the two individuals. There is no difference, moral or otherwise, in the importance of confidentiality in those two cases.
The Government are right to be concerned about ensuring that the confidentiality of the security services is kept, but they have undermined their case both by their inconsistency and their consistent failure to recognise what really matters. It is absurd that we should go on pretending that we do not have an intelligence service and for Sir Robert Armstrong to be expected to deny in court that there is such a thing as MI6. But there are things which have have to be kept confidential. If the Government were more consistent and offered genuine opportunities for

oversight and for the aggrieved officer to raise his grievance in a suitable manner, they would be in a better position to work for the preservation of the confidentiality and day-to-day secrecy on which the security services depend to do their job on our behalf.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: First, let me say constructively what I believe should now be done. The Security Commission should be converted into a tribunal of inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. The Security Commission consists of Lord Griffiths, Sir Anthony Lloyd, the deputy chairman, and Lord Allen of Abbeydale and four others. Therefore, they have the legal firepower and are already in the business of security matters. I have discussed this with two former permanent secretaries of the Home Office and one former permanent secretary of the Foreign and Commonwealh Office and believe that it is a sensible proposition.
To save time, I quote the powers. On 23 January 1964, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, the Prime Minister, in announcing the setting-up of the Security Commission, said:
Exceptionally, the Commission might find that they were unable to make progress without powers to compel evidence. In such a case, Parliament would be asked to pass the necessary Resolution under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, to vest the Commission with the powers of that Act for that particular inquiry. The Commission would then proceed in all respects as a Tribunal of Inquiry."— [Official Report, 23 January 1964; Vol. 687, c. 1272–3.]
I am glad that we are not voting tonight, because I would have been uncomfortable about doing so, believing that these matters are very serious and that we must wait until the end of the court case in Australia. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) for agreeing to this.
The Security Commission or tribunal should discuss certain specific matters. The first of them concerns Anthony Blunt. I do not think it edifying for people like me, or most of us in this generation, to try to pass censorious moral judgments on men when in their late teens or early twenties in Cambridge or elsewhere in the 1930s. The lines between pro-Communism and passionate, and justified, anti-Fascism were blurred. From 1941 to 1945, Russia was on our side. For my part, I will remember Anthony Blunt as an inspiring lecturer who awakened my interest in the French impressionists.
What I am about to say I am perfectly prepared to repeat outside the Chamber. I do not shelter under privilege, but the House of Commons is the right place for a Member of Parliament to make such statements for the first time.
I believe that Anthony Blunt left a collection of documents compiled by himself and that those documents were bequeathed to his brother, whom I have not approached. The condition was that the documents should not be made public for 20 years. I do not know whether Mr. Blunt's brother has read them. The papers were transferred to an institution in London for safe keeping.
However, I am informed and believe that a Government agency has had a sight of those papers. They revealed to the agency not only who the so-called fifth man was, but many other names and facts. Because the Prime Minister said that there was no proof that Sir Roger Hollis was a Soviet spy—that is before the papers being read,


so I am sure that the Hollis statement was made in good faith by the Prime Minister on the basis of knowledge available at the time—it is difficult for the Prime Minister to admit any knowledge of who was a spy at this late stage. I take on board what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot).
This brings me to the subject of burglary. For a Government agency to have read these papers was strictly illegal. Illegal or not, it has now been done. The parallel case is the break-in at Sidgwick and Jackson. That was illegal. That was six weeks before the book "Their Trade is Treachery" was published.
I ask the direct question: have Ministers been told about the documents bequeathed by Anthony Blunt? Have they been told whether knowledge that Hollis was positively identified as being a spy has come from these documents? I am not asking that the documents, which are very personal, should be made available, but I am asking that the Security Commission, either itself or—better still—as a tribunal under the 1921 Act, should have a sight of what the Government agencies know.
I am concerned about ministerial control over housebreaking by state agencies, which is akin to the problem of state telephone tapping. Is there effective ministerial control over breaking into and entering houses? This is a legitimate and important question, unless the House of Commons is told that there was no authorised breaking and entering.
House breaking is illegal, just as phone tapping is illegal, infringing the right of privacy. A Minister may authorise phone tapping on internal matters. Which Minister is responsible for any rules of breaking into and entering houses, be they private houses or those of publishers? Peter Wright was the senior case officer when Blunt was supposed to have confessed. I understand that it is simply not true that he confessed all. Apparently, there is an affidavit that the Prime Minister misled the Commons on Blunt. Furthermore, parts of Blunt's testimony were kept out. Why? A tribunal should be told. After all, the Prime Minister came in with a great fanfare of trumpets, saying "I am going to get control of the security services", and then did nothing about it. Why have the doubtless good intentions gone astray? As I told him at the Islwyn constituency Labour party Chartist rally in November 1985, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), when he becomes Prime Minister, must give his mind to those problems. Does the Blunt testimony reveal who tipped off Burgess and Maclean? The late Colonel Marcus Lipton told me before he died that he believed that Burgess and Maclean had been tipped off by a senior figure of the so-called establishment, who did so out of the kindness of his heart on an old-boy network, and not by a spy or agent. This issue should be clarified by a commission or tribunal.
Another matter to which a commission or tribunal should turn its attention is a letter from Sir Michael Hanley to Wright, which reads:
The firm is doing well and has passed recent examinations.
Was this a reference to a private inquiry by Sir Robert Armstrong into MI5's activities against the Wilson Government? If so, on whose initiative and authority does the Security Service investigate some 30 persons such as Lord Kagan? Was it freelance or part of coherent control,

and where was the accountability? What could Peter Wright have meant by using the words "deniable, authorised, illegal" when referring to activity in the Wilson years? It is the opinion of Mr. Richard Morton Taylor, who was in court, that he did not make this up.
The tribunal must consider the Attorney-General's role. Why did it take 10 days for Sir Robert Armstrong to apologise? The apology came 10 days after my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—this is in column 426 of Hansard of 27 November—had asked about the Attorney-General's role. Why was the Attorney-General not consulted about Rupert Allason? Why was he not consulted about Chapman Pincher? These are all questions to which there must be sensible answers.
For reasons of time, I shall omit other questions that could be asked about the Attorney-General, save for one. The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that they have MI5 in control and then say at the same time that the Attorney-General did not know. Either the Government are in control—they are indivisible, are not they?—or they are not. When did Sir Robert Armstrong know about "Their Trade is Treachery"? Was it February 1981 or December 1980? How could Mr. Pincher be quoted as saying, "All is well now. All is hunky-dory"? I asked the question of the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir. A. Kershaw) about the time in 1984 that he was sending Clive Ponting's letter to me to the Ministry of Defence. He sent another document to Sir Robert Armstrong, which was a dossier from Wright. Why were Her Majesty's Government not as active about the Wright dossier as they were about the Ponting dossier?
It is important that the Labour party is committed to the Cirencester and Tewkesbury amendment of the Bournemouth conference of 1985, when it was promised that we would have some sort of tribunal to which civil servants who felt that they had been abused could go. Did Sir Robert Armstrong hush up the Kershaw note concerning the memorandum from Wright? Were other members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs told? If so, should a chairman of a Select Committee keep such a matter to himself?
Finally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it may be within your recollection that I raised with Mr. Speaker the issue of Members' telephones. My hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) has received a letter which I have cross-checked, which I think should be the property of the House. It reads:
First of all, let me make it plain that I am not and never have been subject to the Official Secrets Act.
This is an anonymous letter. It continues:
I will not identify myself because I am apprehensive of the Security Services. For 12 years, from 1968 to 1980, I was associated with the modernisation of the Government's telephone network covering the Whitehall area. The project consisted of eight central branch exchanges, each covering a geographical area of Whitehall, and all included all Government offices and buildings within that area. Each of these CBXs was connected to each other and to the outside public network via a CBX tandem exchange located in the building known as the North Rotunda under the Department of the Environment at the entrance on Great Peter Street. Also in this building were located three of the eight CBXs, the others being located around central London. The Palace of Westminster was served by a CBX located in an underground bunker in Storey's Gate, since modernised, I believe.
You will appreciate from the above that the key to the whole network is the CBX tandem access, which would give anyone access to all telephone calls internally and externally, which is open to some 70,000 telephone lines. These included all MPs' telephones, Downing Street and any other


telephones serving Government Departments for roughly one square mile around Whitehall. Access to the North Rotunda building is via a door to the right of the Great Peter Street entrance of the Department of the Environment, and required a pass issued by the authorities to visitors, who were allowed to fill in a visitor's pass that had to be handed over on leaving the building. On entering the building one is confronted by a flight of steps, opposite which is a glass-fronted office that is manned at all times by uniformed security officers. Over a period of time, mostly outside normal working hours, a room immediately to the left at the bottom of the steps was installed with extensive and very sophisticated equipment.
One day two severe-looking men turned up at the site and refused to show either identification passes or to fill in a visitor's document. After being refused admission, uniformed security guards received a telephone call instructing them and their colleagues to give all these men access day and night without question. These men and others manned the equipment in this room 24 hours a day. They never spoke or acknowledged normal greetings and access to the room was barred, of course. I cannot remember when this started, having no access to records, but it was a few weeks after MPs received push-button telephones instead of dial telephones. I am sure that this can soon be ascertained.
It soon became accepted by all the Post Office BT staff and the contracting engineers that the only possible purpose for which this equipment could be used was intercepting telephone calls. I am sure that you realise the implications. Imagine the political advantage if you were the Government of the day and you had access to every telephone call made and received by Opposition MPs, every civil servant in Whitehall, not to mention"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I hope that the extract is about to come to an end. The hon. Gentleman should be making a speech rather than reading a letter.

Mr. Dalyell: I merely say that it is not explained how telephone calls between my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and Australia were intercepted. The answer that Mr. Speaker gave me was to refer the matter to the Prime Minister. Many hon. Members are concerned about what has happened and I believe that the information that came to my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East rings true.

Mr. David Winnick: I am sure that the concluding point of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) should be taken up by the authorities in the House. It is a serious matter which cannot be dismissed out of hand.
The only thing that I would say about the case in Australia, which my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) made much of, and rightly so, is that it was a mistake in the first place for the Government to pursue the case. I doubt whether they will win it, and the Government will be left with much egg on their face. The case has done nothing for the reputation of the Cabinet Secretary, who had an embarrassing brief, to say the least. In the eyes of many in Australia, and perhaps in Britain as well, he made rather an ass of himself.
When the Select Committee on Home Affairs decided to look into the activities of the special branch, a number of witnesses came before the Committee to assure us that there was nothing to worry about. We know that the special branch works closely with the Security Service, and we were told that the work being undertaken by the Security Service and by the special branch was legitimate and that there was no question of anyone being inquired into because of his political views, that political dissent was

legitimate, and that there was little to worry about. The majority of the Committee came to the conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to justify a report which stated that the work being undertaken by the special branch was perfectly in order.
Some Labour Members, however, were not convinced. I am sure that much of the work undertaken by the special branch is necessary and justified but many people—certainly many people in the Labour movement—are concerned that some activities carried out by the special branch have little to do with the security of the state.
It was near the end of our inquiry into the special branch that a television film called "MI5's Official Secrets" was shown. Some people have said that we should not take too much notice of what Mr. Wright told the court—that he has exaggerated, and so on. In the television film, Cathy Massiter, a former official of MI5, stated that a number of people and organisations were the subject of inquiries because of their political views. They are people and organisations who in no way can be described as trying to undermine our democratic institutions.
One of the organisations mentioned by Miss Massiter was the National Council for Civil Liberties. She said, as I remarked in an intervention in the speech of the Minister, that anyone who worked for the NCCL, anyone on the executive council and anyone who is active enough to be a branch secretary of that organisation is subject to inquiry, and a file is kept by MI5. One of the people who was the subject of an investigation—and certainly a file by MI5—was, apparently, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) when she was the legal officer of that organisation. Is it suggested that my hon. Friend wants to undermine our democratic institutions and that she wants to turn this country into a Soviet republic? Therefore, inevitably, an argument that those activities are going on must give rise to a great deal of anxiety and undermine our confidence in the Security Service.
I wish to give another illustration. When a journalist of some 30 years resigned as the editor of the CND journal—he had fallen out, as people tend to do in various organizations—he was subject to several questions from the special branch. It wanted to know who lived with whom, and what was the leadership style of the then general secretary of the CND. What is the purpose of such questions? If it is claimed by Ministers, including the Prime Minister, that it is perfectly legitimate to argue that one can be in favour of nuclear disarmament without being a security risk, why are those questions asked? They must give rise to much concern.
From reports in the press and from what Miss Cathy Massiter states, I understand that in MI5 there is what is known as an F branch. It is sub-divided into other branches. For example, F2 investigates trade unions, F7 investigates various political groups, including Members of Parliament—that is interesting to know—teachers, teachers, lawyers and journalists, F4 is responsible for putting agents into political parties and organisations, and F6 is responsible for trade unions.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: What a load of crap.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman made a comment that I do not wish to repeat. [Interruption.] One of my hon. Friends says that it is possible that F7 has a file on the hon. Gentleman. If so, I deplore it.
The recent allegations arising from the court case regarding a plot against the Labour Prime Minister at the time add further reasons why there should be a Select Committee or some form of parliamentary oversight of the security services. What would be the position if it were stated in court by a former MI5 official that certain MI5 officials had plotted to undermine a Conservative Prime Minister? I doubt whether Conservative Members would take such allegations in a light-hearted way. Surely at the end of the day we must persuade the House and the country that MI5 officials act in a politically neutral way. The first requirement of anyone who works in the Security Service is that he is totally committed to parliamentary democracy. Would anyone suggest that Mr. Peter Wright and some of his cronies who carried out what can only be described as subversive and criminal acts in 1974 are dedicated to parliamentary democracy? We know about Mr. Peter Wright. Do some of his colleagues, who worked with him at the time, remain in the Security Service? If so, is it not time that they were thrown out? Is it not time, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), the former leader of the Labour party, stated, for MI5 to be cleansed completely?
That we need a Security Service is without doubt, but we need a Security Service that is politically neutral and is determined to defend parliamentary democracy. It is no good talking about fighting subversion while at the same time members of the security services do their utmost to carry out subversive activities. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) has changed his mind about the parliamentary Select Committee. It is essential, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said, that there should be such a Select Committee to oversee the Security Service. It will not come into being during this Parliament. I hope that, when my party returns to office, such a Select Committee will be set up.

Mr. Waddington: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall speak again.
I think that all hon. Members will agree that this has been an interesting debate. We should thank the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) for having selected the subject, even though I do not think that there was much in the content of his speech for which to thank him. I have already commented on his speech, so I shall refer to the remarks by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). He suggested that the best alternative to the present system was the setting up of a

Select Committee which, in some way or another, would survey the work carried out by the Security Service. If that course is suggested, we must face, in the starkest fashion, the difficulty that was posed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in the debate last week—whether the body responsible for surveillance will be within or outside the barrier of secrecy.
It is difficult to contemplate a Select Committee on which there would be not only Privy Councillors but people who are not Privy Councillors, being privy to operations carried out by the Security Service. If the Select Committee, with that role, is not to go within the barrier of secrecy, it is highly unlikely that it will satisfy the critics of the present system. It is difficult to see how it will be any improvement at all on the present system.
I was interested in the remarks made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival). He pointed to the inconsistency of the case put forward by the hon. Member for Workington, who seemed to say that what Wright did was wrong, yet it was equally wrong to take action to try to prevent him from doing it. One could have understood it if the hon. Gentleman had said that what Wright was doing was wrong, that it was impolitic to do much about it, and that there were more dangers involved in the Government trying to do anything about it than to do nothing. I thought that my right hon. and learned Friend was right. The hon. Member for Workington said that while Wright was doing what was treasonable, we should do nothing about it, and that indeed he was entitled, as an hon. Member, not just to object but to bend all his efforts over the weeks and months to destroy the British case in the Australian courts. That strikes me as one of the most bizarre cases to have been but forward by any hon. Member over recent years—

Mr. Robert Atkins: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Main Question put and negatived.

RETIREMENT

Motion made, and Question put,

That this House would welcome measures to introduce the opportunity of flexible retirement ages equally for men and women with appropriately adjusted state retirement pensions; urges employers to help their employees to build up a personal pension fund to provide for a comfortable standard of living in retirement; and calls on all political parties to support the Government's efforts to control inflation to protect the value of people's savings for retirement.—[Mr. Henderson.]

Question agreed to.

Adjournment (Christmas)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House at its rising on Friday 19th December do adjourn until Monday 12th January, and that the House shall not adjourn on Friday 19th December until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Biffen.]

7 pm

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Whether or not it is getting near Christmas, the House of Commons likes to forget about Ulster, to which our country owes its survival. For one thing, the obsession with devolved government drives a wedge of difference between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and cuts the Province adrift, as it were, from our party politics, especially because the historic Tory-Ulster Unionist alliance has become so tenuous.
We all deplore the absence from their places of Northern Ireland Members, but it would be wrong to adjourn without the House being given up-to-date knowledge of a situation that might be described as creeping anarchy. Despite the courage, efficiency and diligence of the security forces, and, indeed, their successes, and despite the efforts of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Northern Ireland Office and the large investment by our taxpayers in an ailing economy, the majority in Northern Ireland are embittered and estranged and, largely in consequence, the minority are afraid.
Bishop Daly of Down and Connor, speaking at the funeral of a victim of the UVF, said:
the Sectarian blood-lust of the 1970s might return.
Sometimes the security forces find themselves between two fires. Public representatives, including those who sit for Northern Ireland constituencies, refuse to meet and to work with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office. Before we rise for the recess, we should have at least an assurance from those Ministers that they are taking stock of what has gone wrong and what they should do now.
The situation was summarised by the distinguished chairman of the Northern Ireland Economic Council, Sir Charles Carter, in an article that he wrote in The Times of 20 August. He said:
Many responsible people in the province feel that the government has allowed itself to assume a quite unacceptable risk and that, if nothing is done, there could be a spiral of further depression and violence until Ulster really does become ungovernable except by a massive military effort, which would consume even greater amounts of public resources.
How could the agreement not be destabilising when the offending Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, established under the agreement, was commended to the Republic by Dr. FitzGerald as being "as near joint authority" as can be? The House will remember that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister roundly rejected joint authority for Northern Ireland in a memorable press conference. I wish that the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) were here to tell us of his American conspiracy. If there is not an American conspiracy, the two Governments have made it appear as if there were. There was a Congressional chorus hymning the signature of the Anglo-Irish Agreement at Hillsborough castle. The agreement has been accompanied by international aid, primarily United States dollar aid, which Her Majesty's Government should not have stooped to accept. I ask my

right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to tell us when we may debate and even reject the International Fund for Ireland in respect of Northern Ireland.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement has thrust Northern Ireland still further away from us. If it has driven Ulster mad, it is all the easier to say, "Those people over there are mad, and the sooner we have nothing more to do with them, the better." That appears to be a conspiracy to some people. Thus, the idea of an independent Ulster, paradoxically advocated by some Loyalists, an idea that received official sympathy when the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, gains ground. The despair of British intentions strengthens it. It is as though the Province and its people were being softened for separation.
When I criticise the Anglo-Irish Agreement and its consequences, people are inclined to say, "What would you do?" I could reply as the Irish peasant did and say that I would not have started from here. However, I should like to be constructive and make two suggestions, one concerning the administration of the Province and the other concerning the future of the agreement. I suggest to my right hon. Friends that they should not rule out so contemptuously the full integration of Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom. They are inclined to say, "Never can this happen." I remind them that the use of the word "never" destroyed the career of a distinguished Minister of the Crown, the predecessor of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann). He is now Lord Colyton, happily still with us. He used the word "never" in connection with Cyprus. I ask Ministers not to say never will they ever consider full integration or administrative devolution, call it what one will. That brings me to my second point, on the future of the agreement.
If one can make sure of the union and convince the Unionist majority that one has made sure of the union, they will feel free to stretch out their hands, as they have often in the past, to the minority in the Province and to the Republic to the south. It would be nice, but I do not expect to hear from the Government that they propose to rescind the agreement or even seek its abrogation with Dublin. But my proposal is to replace or supplement it with a larger agreement—not an unequal agreement but an equal treaty—covering not only the security of these islands but all the aspects of common concern in our unique relationship.
That relationship came about, and that phrase came into use when Mr. Haughey was Taoiseach. I do not know what will happen in the election shortly to take place in the Republic. It is not my business to comment on it—

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: But.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: But it is noteworthy that, when Mr. Haughey was Taoiseach, the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council—not to be confused with the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference—was instituted. That institution, the secretariat that accompanied it and even the idea of a parliamentary tier were acceptable. They were on the right lines. But the intergovernmental conference is not.
Ulster is not England. When Ulster says no, it means no. I invite Ministers to take to heart the words of Lord Salisbury in 1878, because I believe that there is no health or life left in the agreement. He said:


The commonest error in politics is sticking to the carcases of dead policies.

Mr. Michael Cocks: I shall not detain the House long. I think that the motion for the Adjournment is a little premature. There are still a couple of days before Christmas that could be utilised to discuss other matters, especially a constituency point—the activities of the Hanson Trust and Lord Hanson. I shall eschew references to Lord Hanson's previous activities and not make any of the possibly rather cheap points that might be made. I ask the Government to consider whether Lord Hanson and his operatives could give much greater information to the workers involved in the takeovers which are following his activities. He has succeeded in making the phrase "asset stripping" one which is in common usage by the general public and which is now understood in a completely new way.
In Bristol the Imperial Group was taken over. The great factory in East street, Bedminster, which stood for many years, has been demolished. There is great concern about the new factory, which was built at Hartcliffe not long ago. The tobacco industry is and will continue to be under siege, not only from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) but from cheap imports from the continent. The Government could well consider this aspect, because those imports are undermining the interests of my constituents.
The problem has been reflected in a number of recent redundancies at the factory. Rumours are rife that the factory is to be closed. It was purpose built some years ago, and it is known that it is suitable for conversion to other uses. I make this plea to the Government: although it may not be easy to restrain Lord Hanson's commercial activities, he could be asked to give much more information to the workers who are affected by his activities. There is nothing so destructive to a man's morale and his family as uncertainty about job prospects. If an assurance were given that, as long as there is a demand, tobacco will continue to be manufactured at Hartcliffe, the Government could be helpful in persuading Lord Hanson to remove the uncertainty that dogs so many people.
I ask the Leader of the House to note my points and to pass them on to his colleagues to ascertain whether uncertainty can be lifted by discussion with Lord Hanson so that his intentions become clearer. That is what is needed—not his making a cheap buck from flogging off parts of the companies that he takes over.

Sir Ian Gilmour: I shall not follow the interesting speech by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks), but I thoroughly agree that the House should not adjourn until it has had the opportunity to debate the defence scandal over the demountable rack offloading and pick-up system. The Government have agreed to set up an independent inquiry into the whole seedy affair.
DROPS is equipment for transporting ammunition to the battlefield. I know something about these matters because I was the Minister who set up the procurement executive and was in charge of it in its various

manifestations during the first few years. The concept of DROPS was very largely that of a firm in my constituency, Boughton. It pressed the concept on the Army for many years. So confident was Boughton of its ideas that it built the equipment at its own expense and sold it to four foreign armies. Its equipment was in existence by 1975, and the Ministry of Defence could have bought it then. The equipment that was available to the Ministry of Defence is substantially the same as that which, after years of incompetence, duplicity and cover up, the Army will eventually receive in 1989.
However, there is a great deal more to it than mere incompetence in this disgraceful and scandalous affair. Indeed, the House will probably find the story scarcely credible as I briefly tell it. As I said, the concept is largely Boughton's, although I am sorry that my right hon. and hon. Friends have sought to deny that and have said—no doubt in good faith—that other firms were very much involved and that it was not Boughton's concept.
In 1978, the chief of staff, British Army of the Rhine, said:
During the last two years the MOD have been examining the various systems used by commercial operators in the UK to allow one vehicle to perform two or more functions. The examination concluded that only one, the Ampliroll"—
that is, Boughton's—
possessed sufficient potential to warrant trials being carried out".
In September 1981, the defence sales section of the procurement executive wrote to the vice chief of the general staff, saying:
The Boughton Group have promoted the concept to DGTM since 1974 and developed most of the equipment which is central to it. They are the principal authority in what is technically feasible.
That should be borne in mind when the Ministry of Defence is attempting to say that Boughton was not the leader in this development. However, Boughton pressed this equipment on the Ministry of Defence and eventually convinced it. The Ministry issued a statement of requirements and invited Boughton to tender for a feasibility study.
Boughton was clearly better qualified than any other competitor. Above all, it was the only company that had a complete working system in existence. All the others were still at the drawing board. Boughton had fully fledged equipment in existence. Boughton's design was wholly British. I know that the Ministry of Defence does not seem to be attached to British equipment these days, but to most people it is surely a considerable advantage. Furthermore, Boughton met all the specifications better than its competitors, and it was cheapest. The Ministry tries to blur that inconvenient fact by weasel words.
For the feasibility study vehicles, competitors were asked to produce prices backed by detailed documentation. Boughton was easily the cheapest—sometimes by up to 80 per cent. Competitors were asked to produce production estimates for 2,000 vehicles—just a one-line estimate backed by no evidence. Boughton produced its actual production costs—because it was the only company that produced the equipment, it knew the costs—and the others produced estimates bristling with hedges and caveats. In any case, for what Boughton was asked to do, it was the cheapest. The independent assessors, who were used on the "Panorama" programme


and were recommended by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers as being the best in that business, supported Boughton.
To sum up, Boughton offered the most for the least, yet, incredibly, it was excluded from the trial. That was a shameful and improper decision. That is the most scandalous feature of the affair. One of the reasons for it was, I think, that the people in the procurement executive were so besotted with their own ideas and estimates of their abilities that they preferred a design which Boughton had many years before shown not to work.
The procurement executive then wasted much time and money proving that its ideas did not work—which we knew already—and, since then, it has been drawn back to Boughton's ideas and equipment while trying to conceal that it has done so. That is the second scandalous feature of this affair.
The third scandalous feature is the cover up that has gone on and the fatuous nature of the explanation that the procurement executive has attempted to make for its exclusion of Boughton from the competition. If anybody was in any serious doubt that there was a scandal here, he would only have to read the attempted explanation of it by the Ministry of Defence. Indeed, when "Panorama" was thinking of doing a programme, because it thought that there was something seriously wrong, it became fully convinced of that fact only when it had listened to a major presentation of the Ministry of Defence's case.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is by nature very sceptical, but if he gets any briefing from the Ministry of Defence I strongly advise him to treat it with even more than his usual scepticism because, on all previous form, it is highly unlikely to be anywhere near true. Some of our right hon. Friends have suffered because of that already.
When I first raised this matter in July 1983, it took the Ministry of Defence six and a half months to give me a substantive reply. It is true that during that period my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), then the Secretary of State, was courteous enough to see me. Nevertheless, it took six and a half months to get a reply, and then it was so staggeringly thin and unconvincing that, as I stated in my rejection of it, I would have regarded it as gravely inadequate if it had been sent to me the previous July. Put forward as an attempted justification of the Ministry of Defence's conduct six and a half months later, it was little more than a plea of guilty.
Not only does the Ministry of Defence's attempted replies starkly reveal the poverty of its case, but so bad is that case that it attempts to shut its opponents up. We all know of the intimidation of an hon. Member, but, on more than one occasion, people in the Ministry tried to intimidate the firm. That is not the behaviour of people who possess confidence in a just case; it is the frightened and guilty behaviour of people who know that their case is bad and is not defensible by decent methods. That is not so, of course, of all at the Ministry. People change so quickly in the Ministry of Defence that few of those who were responsible for this blunder or crime are still in the same spots. I think that some of their successors do not know what happened then and are acting in good faith. Others, out of misplaced feelings of solidarity, are just determined to cover up.
I have always refused to ascribe motives for what was done because the facts are enough in themselves. The reasons may have been personal animosity, blind

dogmatism, sheer dismal ineptitude or something more sinister. General Mans, when he looked at the matter in 1984, thought that the unfair and improper exclusion of Boughton had been influenced by personal considerations. That is certainly true, but I do not exclude additional motives.
Like others, I have a high regard for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. We were Ministers together in the Ministry of Defence many years ago. He has a great deal to do and a great deal on his mind. Here he has made a natural but, in this case, disastrous mistake of believing what he has been told by his advisers. That has already involved him in some embarrassment because what he said—on Ministry advice, of course—about Boughton not being intimidated turned out to be wrong. Although I understand his difficulties, I find his refusal of any inquiry, at least up to now, indefensible.
It is true that the Comptroller and Auditor General is interested in this contract. Indeed, we drew his office's attention to it last August. That should be a useful inquiry, but everybody knows that the Comptroller and Auditor General is concerned with financial irregularity and the spending of public money. He looks at the Ministry's documents and examines civil servants. He does not hear outside evidence. Welcome as his researches are, they should be in addition to, not a substitute for, an independent inquiry.
I shall summarise the case. In 1983, the Ministry of Defence selected equipment which was of a lower specification than Boughton's, offered at much higher prices than Boughton's—some were 80 per cent. higher—in virtually every respect inferior to Boughton's in its compliance with the stated requirements, and years behind Boughton's in development. In making this selection, the Ministry neglected to verify compliance with the stated requirements, introduced new and arbitrary requirements which were designed to favour systems other than Boughton's, were irrelevant or wrong, were at variance with previous trials experience, Ministry policy or the majority of "expert opinion" in the Ministry, and are now seen to be incompatible with achieving the stated requirements for DROPS.
When dealing with complaints and inquiries since 1983, the Minstry of Defence has lied about the relative prices of competing equipment, lied about that lie about prices, intimidated Boughton to suppress its legitimate complaints, lied to hon. Members about that intimidation and attempted to suppress legitimate and proper inquiries in private by an hon. Member.
How can anybody now have any confidence in the procurement process for any other equipment if the procurement executive is allowed to get away with such behaviour and nobody is punished for it? Unless the Government want us to believe that this sort of behaviour in the procurement executive is quite normal, they have a clear duty to set up an independent inquiry. Unless they think that injustice, incompetence, dissembling and deceit are fine and proper as well as normal, the case for an inquiry is overwhelming. Unless the Government believe that the right response to a scandal is to attempt to hush it up, they should order an inquiry now.

Mr. James Wallace: The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) spoke in forthright terms on an important issue


and I am sure that the House is grateful to him. He can expect the full support of this Bench for the independent inquiry that he seeks.
If time permits, I also would want to raise issues concerning defence procurement—the supply of arms by the United Kingdom to Iran and the Government's choice of an airborne early warning system. They are separate issues, but both raise important questions which require a full Government response before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess.
The Government's stance on the supply of arms to Iran was set out by the Foreign Secretary in a written answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Etterick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) on 29 October 1985. He said that the following guidelines would apply:

(i) We should maintain our consistent refusal to supply any lethal equipment to either side;
(ii) Subject to that overriding consideration, we should attempt to fulfil existing contracts and obligations;
(iii) We should not, in future, approve orders for any defence equipment which, in our view, would significantly enhance the capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate the conflict;
(iv) In the line with this policy, we should continue to scrutinise rigorously all applications for export licences for the supply of defence equipment to Iran and Iraq.—[Official Report, 29 October 1985; Vol. 84, c. 450.]

That seems reasonable, but closer examination reveals that it might not amount to all that much. Contractual obligations entered into with the pre-revolutionary Government cannot readily be set aside, but it is some time since they were entered into, and the implications of the supply of spare parts or the assistance with maintenance of equipment cannot be ignored when the recipient country is engaged in armed conflict which has already claimed many lives.
Fulfilling contractual obligations is, of course, subject to the overriding consideration that we should refuse to supply lethal equipment. That also seems reasonable until we ask what is the distinction between "lethal" and "non-lethal". I am not aware of the Government publicising a difference, but the sensible approach is that any equipment which keeps the war machine going is ultimately lethal as it will help to prolong or exacerbate the conflict. Indeed, the absurdity of trying to distinguish between lethal and non-lethal equipment was exposed by Mr. Colin Chandler, the head of the Ministry of Defence defence export services organisations, when he spoke earlier this year at the British Army equipment exhibition at Aldershot. He said:
there is no such thing as a 'non-lethal' weapon.
When one considers the reports in yesterday's The Observer, the applicability of the Government's criteria, particularly as to what is "non-lethal", seems to come into question. The newspaper stated:
Fifty Chieftain tank engines together with spares for Scorpion armoured cars and radar equipment worth a total of £35 million were shipped to Iran from Liverpool last month…
The equipment was trucked to Liverpool from warehouses in the Midlands after a final inspection by an Iranian official … 
Despite Government claims that no British military spares have been shipped for 18 months, The Observer has evidence that the trade is being continued with official knowledge, through a series of British middlemen.
Whatever the Government's position, important questions arise. If the Government did not know that such

shipments were being made, what sort of policing operation is being mounted to ensure that regulations on export licences for the sale of defence equipment are not being circumvented? In recent weeks concern has been expressed from several sources that London is being used as a trading centre for arms deals with Iran. There is little or no evidence that the Government have appeared worried about that, which begs the question whether the Government did not know or did not want to know about direct shipments from the United Kingdom.
If the Government knew that the shipments were being made, it calls into question the assurances that have been given on many occasions recently from the Dispatch Box that the Government are resolutely abiding by their declared policy in respect of these arms sales. Are Ministers trying to maintain the integrity of their answers by allowing either a wide definition of "non-lethal" or a limited view of what would prolong or exacerbate the conflict, so that almost anything goes and any shipment can slip through?
In a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale about a fortnight ago, the Prime Minister claimed that the United Kingdom's policy on arms sales to Iran and Iraq was
one of the strictest in Europe
and that
the policy has been maintained scrupulously and consistently.
Surely, having staked out for themselves a position on such high moral ground, the Government have a duty to be more open and forthcoming than they have been until now on reports about arms shipments and sales to Iran.
Increasingly questions are being asked in the House and the press about whether the Government are living up to their declared position. There have been reports of negotiations between Iranian officials and representatives of International Military Sales—a company fully owned by the Ministry of Defence. Those negotiations are alleged to have taken place between 20 and 31 October. In recent weeks the Government have confirmed that they intend to keep open the office of the IMS in Teheran. Last week there were newspaper reports of a multi-million pound order for Plessey to supply a radar system to Iran. In the past two days there has been a report of a shipment of equipment worth £35 million from Liverpool.
All those reports call into question the scrupulousness and consistency with which the Government are applying their declared policy. In recent weeks we have seen on the other side of the Atlantic the consequences of trying to keep arms sales to Iran in the dark. Before the House adjourns for the recess, it should be incumbent on Ministers in the Ministry of Defence to come to the House and declare with greater frankness than before precisely what has been going on regarding the shipment of arms to Iran.
My second issue relates to defence procurement and the controversial choice of an airborne early warning system for the United Kingdom. It is a complex issue, and I certainly do not envy the Secretary of State his decision.
My right hon. and hon. Friends believe that, all other things being equal and both systems being able to come up to the Royal Air Force specific performance requirements, there is no question but that the Government should choose GEC Nimrod.

Mr. Michael Cocks: What a caveat.

Mr. Wallace: I missed that sedentary intervention.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Which system does the alliance want to buy?

Mr. Wallace: I have made it perfectly clear that we would choose the GEC Nimrod. [Interruption.] Ceteris paribus.
Two major considerations weigh with us in reaching that conclusion. The first reason concerns jobs. The employment prospects of many people employed by GEC Avionics and its sub-contractors are involved and a decision not to proceed with Nimrod would doom many of those jobs. Those jobs already exist and are not merely a declared intention. Many of them are for highly qualified technical staff. The great fear is that, even if the offset jobs proposed by Boeing come to pass, they would not be of the same high technical quality of the existing jobs. The offset proposal is, on the face of it, attractive and one would hope that if the Government opted for the AWACs system—which from all press accounts seems to be the course which they are about to take—they would use their strong bargaining power to ensure that a belt-and-braces job is done in any contract to make absolutely certain of the 130 per cent. offset.
The second reason is closely related to employment. It is that we should maintain a high-tech base and expertise in Britain and keep the design teams together. Last year on a parliamentary visit to Japan we discussed the fact that often Britain seems to produce Nobel prize winners but does not fare well compared with our Japanese competitors in taking original inventions through to development. There would be serious consequences for our avionics industry if we lost those highly qualified teams and could not keep that expertise together. That would be a grave loss for the United Kingdom, and I fear that we would rapidly become a simple assembly line, putting together other countries' technical achievements.
The proviso I gave was if both systems matched up to performance requirements. If one system is head and shoulders above the other, the overriding principle must be to secure the nation's defence. We should not dodge that issue. In the long term many fundamental questions will be asked about the project. In July the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General criticised the contract management of the project and no doubt in the long term the Public Accounts Committee and the Defence Select Committee will do the House the service of probing the development of the project and discovering whether GEC had one hand tied behind its back because of the refusal of the Ministry of Defence to co-operate, as was suggested in The Independent on Saturday.
In the short term, if a decision is to be made before the Christmas recess we shall expect the Government to be franker than they have been and to come forward with comparative performances of the two systems. If the Government opt for the Boeing system, they know that the House will need a great deal of convincing that it is far superior to Nimrod and that there is no question that, if GEC were allowed a little extra time, there would be no chance of GEC bringing it up to the standard required by the RAF. Clearly, in the past six months GEC has made tremendous strides in developing and improving the system.
Also, in the light of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior), we shall further

have to be satisfied that there has been no question of the Royal Air Force moving the goal posts in recent months and imposing unfair competition.
Hon. Members will wish to be satisfied on these many points and will demand answers to those questions before the House rises for the Christmas recess.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: Before the House rises for the Christmas recess, hon. Members should consider the privacy of sound, and not just not in terms of an absence of sleigh bells or carol singers! Following an initiative generated by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe as part of European Music Year, there appears to be a requirement for the public to be better informed of the positive and negative effects of music and noise. To encapsulate the problem—people need to learn to master their soundscape.
Music can be described, technically, as a biological pacemaker with therapeutic effect or, untechnically, as a pleasant collection of notes. Whatever the definition, there is a general acceptance now that sound is part of the social environment. However, inherent in that acceptance are certain negatives, for there are direct physiologically harmful effects, especially in exposure to over-amplified music; and possible psychological damage of unwanted music resulting in nuisance. The positives can come about only as a consequence of the individual being aware of the quality of his soundscape and its effects on others. Obvious examples of the pluses and the minuses are the delights of a concert hall versus a television transmission from a neighbouring house, the pleasures of a good recording at leisure versus the musak of the supermarket, the peace and tranquility of the countryside versus the shattering impact of a transistor radio, the quiet meditation versus the half-heard so-called personal stereo.
Conservative Members are especially anxious to increase the individual's freedom and his choice, but, as we know only too well, such freedoms also demand responsibilities, and such responsibilities would be enhanced by the Government assisting in the—dare I say it—broadcasting of the facts and consequences.
The privacy of sound is often considered to include the right of silence. I shall now exercise such a right and fall silent, no doubt, with the Christmas recess before us, to the strains of Silent Night!

Mr. Norman Hogg: The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) will forgive me if I do not take up his comments. I share the view already expressed by Labour Members that the House should not adjourn for Christmas yet awhile, and certainly not until we have considered the deteriorating employment position in Scotland, and not least in my constituency.
During the past few weeks 1,600 jobs on the lower Clyde have disappeared. Today it has been announced that hundreds of jobs are to go from the power generation construction industry in Scotland. Last week my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) had the problem of Buchanan whisky closing at Stepps. Now Burroughs Machines at Cumbernauld in my constituency has decided to close its entire operation by June 1987. That same area has seen the closure of Gartcosh steel works and the collieries at Cardowan and


Bedlay. This is happening at a time when nearly 16 per cent. of Scottish workers are unemployed. Indeed, in my constituency 18·3 per cent. are unemployed. Traditional industries such as coal, shipbuilding, steel, and heavy engineering are vanishing. It is especially worrying that the industry that is disappearing from my constituency is not a traditional or sunset industry. It is supposed to be a sunrise industry in the so-called silicon glen.
Burroughs Machines opened in Cumbernauld in 1958, a year before the new town was inaugurated. Once it employed 3,500 people. Last February it ended its manufacturing in Cumbernauld. Now as a result of a merger with an organisation called Sperry Ltd. to form a new organisation called Unisys, Cumbernauld has been sacrificed as part of an 8 per cent. reduction in its worldwide work force.
Early this year the elected representatives of the new town fought the loss of jobs. We met members of the Burroughs board, the Detroit management, the United Kingdom management and the European management, but all to no avail. We met the Secretary of State for Scotland. In pleading the case for the new town and for Burroughs, we laid claim to Scotland's place in high tech industry.
I know that the Government sought to retain the company by grants. It is known that in the last quarter of 1984 the Government gave £1·2 million to Burroughs in grant aid and selective assistance. The Government have recovered £750,000 of that because of the closure. Those figures have not been confirmed yet, of course, because of what the Scottish Office calls commercial confidentiality, but I hope that we shall obtain the facts. Conservative Governments are fond of telling us that Governments have no money except for that which they collect from other people. If that is so, I hope that they will put the record straight for us as regards the public money that has been spent on that company. Moreover, Unisys continues to hold considerable assets in my constituency. It has 460,000 sq ft of factory space and 70 acres of land.
Scotland's industry is dying by instalments. The hopes placed in the high tech electronic industries have yet to be confirmed. The notion that high tech Scottish industries are really brand or subsidiary activities of north Atlantic or Asian based multinationals in not set aside by events such as the Burroughs closure. The sunset of a major multinational which is a giant in the computer industry fills Scotland with foreboding for the future of its high tech plants. What is to be done about it?
Certainly the Cumbernauld development corporation has done everything possible in the past 12 months and earlier to attract new jobs. This year 50 new companies—many of them very small—came to the new town, most notably Isola Werke, Store Shield, Seaboard Lloyd, Allivane International and Gateway Superstores. They are important, but they do not take the place of major manufacturing industries such as Burroughs Machines. This tragic business must be compensated for in some way.
The community that I represent gave Burroughs Machines of its best in its commitment to its products and in the skills of the work force. Burroughs once enjoyed a great reputation in the computer industry, certainly in Europe. The people of Cumbernauld made that possible.

That commitment, those skills and that reputation are not transient but are a continuing part of the new company of Unisys.
I hope that Unisys will show its gratitude to Cumbernauld and that it will donate its factory, offices and land to the new town so that those who continue to serve the town—in Government Departments, in the Cumbernauld development corporation and in the local authorities—may put the facilities to good use in the creation of jobs. Likewise, I hope that the company will maintain its commitment to Cumbernauld and Kilsyth Enterprise Trust. I also hope that the Government will assist me in those objectives. It is the least that the people of Cumbernauld can expect of Unisys given the tragic events of recent weeks and years.

Mr. David Atkinson: Before the House rises for the feast of Christmas, in particular, we should spare a thought for all those who will not be spending Christmas with their families because they are in gulag labour camps for being Christians, for being far too active in their faith for the Soviet state to tolerate. As we know from experience, the more often that their names are mentioned in free Parliaments, and in the free press and media throughout the world, the more effective the pressure is for their release. The House was reminded of that last month, when the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) raised, not for the first time, the plight of the Jews in the Soviet Union—the refuseniks for whom emigration today is down to nil.
In my Adjournment debate last month, on the third Helsinki review conference that recently commenced in Vienna, I referred to Irina Ratushinskaya, the Russian Orthodox poetess, who in 1983 became the first woman in the Soviet Union to be sentenced to the maximum imprisonment of seven years in a gulag labour camp, plus five more years of internal exile for the crime of anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda for writing her poems.
Earlier this year, fears grew for Irina's health when her appalling prison conditions became known. That led to a campaign on her behalf throughout the free world, including the presentation of 31 petitions by right hon. and hon. Members. I have no doubt that it was because of that pressure that Irina was released on the eve of the Reykjavik summit. From today's edition of The Times we learn that, after 16 visits to the emigration authorities since her release, she has now been told that she and her husband will be allowed to come to Britain for health treatment, although she wants to return to Russia to continue her struggle for human rights.
Once again, we learn the lesson to persevere and never to give up on behalf of these courageous people. It is for that reason that I want to draw the attention of the House to the particularly tragic case of Alexander Ogorodnikov, whose situation is now becoming acute. At the age of 22, because he abandoned Marxism for Christianity, he was expelled from the Soviet education system, lost his job, was turned out of several apartments and was always kept under surveillance. In 1974, he helped to found a Christian discussion group called the Seminar. Two years later, several of his colleagues were arrested and interned in psychiatric hospitals.
In 1978, Ogorodnikov was himself arrested and was sentenced to one year in a labour camp on the charge of parasitism. In 1980, he was tried again, charged with the


usual all-purpose crime of anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda, and was sentenced to six years in a gulag labour camp, to be followed by a further five years in internal exile.
We have a number of horrific reports from Ogorodnikov's friends of the appallingly inhumane conditions that he is having to endure, of ill treatment to break his spirit, and of a number of hunger strikes because he is denied a Bible and not allowed to wear a cross. In April of this year, despite his ill health, the loss of his teeth and the growing loss of much of his eyesight, and shortly before he was to be taken to his place of exile after serving six years in a labour camp, he was re-arrested in the camp and sentenced to a further three years imprisonment. There are reports of a file of materials that the KGB is putting together for further charges against him.
It is little wonder that, in the belief that he has now been forgotten by his friends and the rest of the world, Ogorodnikov has apparently attempted suicide three times, and in a letter has asked his mother to appeal to the authorities to execute him by firing squad. He is reported to have said:
Only the full glare of publicity can alter my fate, and those of others in the same situation".
We who are about to celebrate Christmas in freedom must not ignore the fate of Christians like Ogorodnikov who cannot speak for themselves. As a result of what he has heard, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will see that Alexander Ogorodnikov's case is raised at Vienna, along with an urgent appeal for his immediate release on humanitarian grounds.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I rarely participate in these debates because, like most hon. Members who try to do a solid job of work, I am ready by this time of the year to be released from the pressure cooker atmosphere that embraces most of us.
However, I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) and other hon. Members in saying to the Leader of the House that there are important issues that deserve replies from the Ministers concerned. Those replies can be obtained only by allocating time on Monday or Tuesday of next week. That would enable the respective Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box and to argue against the cases made so eloquently by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I shall raise a point of local concern, but it has national implications. I am concerned about what is happening to the Health Service in my district. I care passionately for the NHS, and have spent most of my time in the House trying to improve and secure its operation for the benefit of the sick and disabled and for the prevention of illness.
After a year of struggle, Neasden hospital, which is a hospital for geriatrics, has been closed. It is the second geriatric hospital in my district to close. The other hospital had 94 beds. I am adventurous enough to ask for this matter to be considered because of its impact on the areas represented by other hon. Members. There should be a full debate on this issue.
Neasden provides us with a classic example of mismanagement, because it will in turn reflect the management of 191 district health authorities. It reveals the reality of implementing the Griffiths report — a

blueprint for management that looked extremely good on paper. However, it has now been put into operation, and every hon. Member knows the reality. That is why the House should have an opportunity to debate this issue and why the Minister for Health should answer that debate. People with management expertise may be brought in from outside, but they have no knowledge of people or of the realities of the Health Service.
Neasden hospital was closed last week. The ambulance personnel protested so strongly that the management decided to hire coaches to move the 68 patients. I cannot go into that now, but the shifting and breaking up of a community of 68 elderly people has already had disastrous consequences.
Unusually for me I feel bitter and angry, because an arrogant management has ridden roughshod over the interests of all those who were trying to participate in the decisions made about their families and community. I accuse the district manager, Mr. Lorne Williamson, of arrogantly riding roughshod over the possibility of any compromise or constructive alternative to his own blueprint for managerial decisions. He has even used his managerial expertise to nullify the decisions of his own district health authority committee.
I have been engaged in this campaign since the announcement was made in November 1985, and I made my submissions in February when the time came for consultation. This has been a long and wearisome process in which I have tried to find a compromise. I do not like confrontation between health authorities, local authorities and community health councils. I worked very hard in an attempt to reach a compromise, and that has become known as the "Pavitt plan."
At the last meeting of the district health authority, before the closure took effect, agreement was reached that a working party, consisting of representatives from the local authority, should consider social services, education, under-fives provision and other housing needs in conjunction with the health authority. I pleaded with Mr. Lorne Williamson for that working party meeting to be held before the elderly people were taken away. However, Mr. Williamson managed to close the hospital on 5 December, the meeting having been called for Thursday 11 December. The meeting was called in such a way that it overrode the health authority's intentions. The idea was that there should be joint consultation between the health authority and the local authority on matters of mutual concern and would include from the local authority the directors of development and finance, together with the health authority officers in these fields. The working party, actually convened, consisted of myself as an observer, members of the district health authority, and only one member from social services and one from education from the borough.
Last February, in order to be constructive, I demanded the full figures in order to consider possible ways in which the hospital could be saved. I even wrote to Mr. Speaker and claimed a breach of privilege when I could not get the figures. I also raised questions with the Secretary of State. Finally, on 20 November—too late—I was able to get the full figures for my hospital area. When a Member of Parliament does not receive the same rights as a member of the local authority serving on a district health authority, the House is falling by the wayside.
The technical management skills applied in reaching the decision show no understanding of the community


context. Neasden hospital is in a highly populated area where most people come from the black community. There are high rise blocks and urban sprawl. However, at Neasden there is a small oasis of health care. The object of the closure exercise was to sell the site for £3·7 million and, laudably, to use the money for projects for which I would give my utmost approval. However, the way in which the object was achieved—the managerial inefficiency and bungling—has entirely obviated the goodwill that could have been engendered by the excellent projects for which that money was supposed to be used.
There are two principal areas involved—Willesden and Wembley. Wembley is an affluent area and Willesden is an urban-aided, deprived inner city area. Neasden hospital is in Willesden, yet the money from the closure will be used in Wembley. That is a complete mess-up on the part of the management. The management should realise that and understand the pressures within the areas in which it is working. The management has shown a misunderstanding of human nature by taking money from the black community and spending it in an affluent white area.
The whole purpose of the exercise is finance. I have already mentioned the fact that a 94-bed hospital was closed four years ago. I received an answer from the Under-Secretary of State about the proceeds of that sale that were intended to help my district. Although the patients were removed four years ago, the answer stated:
An offer for the former Leamington Park hospital conditional on the granting of planning permission has been accepted, and the parties concerned are in discussion … The sale price, and the amount accruing to the Brent health authority, will not be known until the planning situation is resolved.
Therefore, money is supposed to arrive from the Neasden sale but it may not arrive for another four years.
The management failed to explore another possibility for finance revealed in the recent autumn statement. Much to my joy, the autumn statement said that £600 million was to be put into health and social security for new projects. I asked the Department whether the projects for which the hospital was being sold, and for which the old people had been turfed out, could have been financed out of the money set aside in the autumn statement. The Minister replied:
It will be for the North-West Thames regional health authority to decide on allocations to its districts when it receives its regional allocation."—[Official Report, 2 December 1986; Vol. 106, c. 621–22.]
That was a possibility for alternative finance, but the management did not explore it. It was determined to close the hospital.
I am irate not only because of the way in which people have been treated. Perhaps Mr. Lorne Williamson deserves the title "Bulldozer", because he has bulldozed his way through to the closure. The little oasis to which I have referred in my area has gardens and trees. The old people were able, in summer time, to get out of their geriatric wards. A geriatric ward is a place in which people die. However, the ambience of living in a community promotes longer life. If the site is sold, the area will be bulldozed. The hospital, which was built nearly 100 years ago, consists of lovely red brick Victorian buildings. The whole area is so different from the 20-storey high rise blocks.
It is important that the National Health Service should realise that it is making the same mistake that was made 20 years ago in relation to housing. We tore down solid buildings to erect modern, concrete jungle blocks. In every area, the National Health Service is tearing down good, solid buildings with character in order to put up characterless blocks.
Recently, the Minister announced that he wanted to sell nurses' homes and that no nurses would be evicted. I must tell the House that 30 nurses and other staff were evicted from Neasden hospital last week. On 25 November they were told that they had to be out by 27 November. They were finally allowed to stay until 2 December and then allowed half a day off to move their goods and chattels somewhere else. The nurses are now scattered over the whole district.
The problems of management are continuing because there is a proposal to close two acute wards at Central Middlesex hospital. That hospital is my pride and joy. I served on its committee for several years. It is one of the finest hospitals in the country. However, I have watched it being salami-sliced, piece by piece. The latest cut is being made at a time when there are too many acute operations waiting to be performed. Two wards are to be axed to fit in with the straitjacket of cash limits.
Mr. "Bulldozer" Williamson has ignored the Royal College of Nursing, the unions and the borough council. They have said that they do not want the hospital to close and that they will oppose the closure. He has also shown a great deal of contempt for the North-West Thames region and the Minister. Although the Minister agreed to approve the closure on 12 November—he and I discussed the matter at a long session—I believe that he may have had further thoughts on the matter. However, he was pre-empted because, even before the decision was taken, the management spent £350,000 on refurbishing two wards on the assumption that the decision to close would be approved.
I apologise for the fact that I am really angry and bitter. However, last night I had the privilege of listening to "Songs of Praise." Last night's programme was devoted to the care of the elderly and to Age Concern. Time and again it was made clear that the most important factor for the health of the elderly was their ability to be able to deal with loneliness.
I came across a quotation the other day, which states:
Solitude is a self-imposed loneliness, and a loneliness which can be ended when it becomes a burden. But loneliness is loneliness and can never be mistaken for solitude because true loneliness is without end and without beauty.
There was an opportunity for real co-ordinated planning between the old people in the community with warden-assisted care and the possibility of the basis in the middle of an urban sprawl and high rise blocks being used as a beautiful centre where elderly patients, inside and outside institutional care, could be looked after. I have been fighting against that for 12 months. It is time that the House looked at the way in which the management of the National Health Service has been eroded over the past few years.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) in his remarks on the Health Service. I share his concern for the Health Service, although perhaps not always his


recipe for how to achieve the goal we all want: to meet the evolving health needs of our nation. I was pleased to hear him suggest that the needs of the elderly are not, in many cases, primarily a question of resources but frequently a question of social needs, isolation and loneliness. I agree with the hon. Gentleman there.
I should like to take this opportunity to raise two matters. The first, is the Lord Chancellor's consultation document the "Interdepartmental Review of Family and Domestic Jurisdiction". The reason for some urgency is that the consultation document took a long time to arrive and the closing date for submissions has already been reached. I know that my right hon. and noble Friend will be in a hurry to meet the wishes of all those impatient Members who feel that the time has come to move towards a family court. Until now I have had the opportunity of referring to family courts only in the context of the Australian model. I want to take this opportunity to talk more about the way it affects us.
We now have approaching 160,000 divorces a year. That figure was around 30,000 in 1954. It is inappropriate to believe that the legal mechanisms that we had for dealing with 30,000 divorces a year can possibly cope with the demand that we now see without causing suffering to the victims of divorce, the children whom my right hon. and noble Friend described as
innocent, silent, inarticulate, and almost unrepresented".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 1983; V61: 445, c. 30.]
He referred to children in that way during the debate on the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill. The interdepartmental review follows the DHSS review of child care law published last year. It is essential to move towards legislation that can integrate the shambles of the different routes by which children enter local authority care—about 20 different routes—together with the incoherent and disintegrated means of obtaining a divorce.
The National Children's Home, in its Christmas campaign, has worked hard to draw public attention to the fact that in every divorce it is the children who are often the victims and who are often most vulnerable. It is too easy for adults to fail to recognise the interests and needs of the children in their desire to desensitise themselves from the pain of the situation.
A family court essentially requires a unified court system, trained and experienced judges and lay people, accessibility by families and their representatives and, above all, a proper forum for dealing with the sensitive area of care proceedings and child abuse, providing a proper focus for the development of specialist welfare services and conciliation. Many have felt disappointed with the Lord Chancellor's consultation document in that it has inappropriately concentrated on the administrative convenience of judges and civil servants and seems to take less account of the users of the court system. Above all, there is some scepticism about his commitment towards moving urgently in the direction of vital reform.
The major strength of a family court lies in procedure. Currently, there are no less than three different family jurisdictions—the High Court, the county court and magistrates courts—each with different powers of procedure, with overlaps, gaps, fragmentations and anomalies. It is fair to say that since Finer legislation has been modified and many of the differences between the substantive law administered by the magistrates and the law applied in the High Court has been reformed. Many

other changes have taken place. Divorce has been simplified and conciliation is more widely available. However, it is still remarkably ad hoc, with different courts providing conciliation and regional variations tending to develop. Some cases are held in private and there is great informality. Some judges have a reputation for expertise and sensitivity but there is no overall comprehensive and understandable service.
There have been many sensible piecemeal reforms but they are no substitute for a comprehensive, integrated, legal system for dealing with the tragedy and trauma of divorce as fairly as possible, not denying the pain involved but not, as at present, all too frequently exacerbating the stress and inflaming the hostility felt by the partners and generally being almost incomprehensible to the lay public. The time has come for action not words on family courts. I hope that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will take the opportunity of the Christmas recess to consider the responses to his consultation document and to take steps towards concrete action.
The other matter I wish to raise also affects families, especially children. Christmas for too many is hardly a religious festival any more. It has become an orgy of television viewing. Last Christmas, out of a television population of 51·3 million in Britain, over 32 million were viewing. I wish to refer to the impact on our young people of violence on television. I recognise that there is some irony in politicians making allegations about the impact of television. Of all groups, we are otherwise occupied during peak viewing periods and I am sure that the programmes we tend to watch are scarcely typical. However, there is a need to focus on what many increasingly regard as the damaging and cumulative effects of gratuitous violence in fictional programmes. We live in a turbulent, stressful and difficult world. Individuals face contridictory and perplexing choices. Whereas television was once a luxury of the few, it is now only a few who do not possess one or more television sets.
On a recent visit to a school in my constituency, I asked the children between the ages of five and eight whether they owned a set. A substantial number had three television sets at home and about one quarter had a set in their own room. When television programmes appear in colour, by the fireside or in the bedroom we have to reevaluate the potency of the message of that remarkable medium. It is a medium that can be used to such staggering and good effect—for example, the coverage of the Ethiopian famine, opening the doors to China and involving each family in the Reykjavik summit.
Advertisers have little difficulty in convincing the commercial world of the effectiveness of a few minutes on the screen: that it can undoubtedly influence adults' behaviour. I should like to draw the House's attention to recent material produced by Yorkshire Television. It gives an account of a publicity campaign on behalf of the Flowers and Plants Association. It had two bursts of advertising in May and June and September and October 1985. We are told that it achieved 937 housewide ratings—that is, over 87 per cent. coverage. On average, the advertisement, persuading people to buy house plants or cut flowers, was seen five times a day. What was the result? Yorkshire Television's advisers on research, distribution and promotion said that viewers saw the advertisement five times on average. Further research showed that during the test period sales rose by 43 per cent. over the previous year, in May, and by 86 per cent. in October when there


was a second burst of advertising. Furthermore, expenditure rose by 50 per cent. on the first occasion and by 127 per cent. on the second.
Yorkshire Television is equally keen to inform us of its effectiveness in persuading people by the use of its advertising to buy Crosse and Blackwell's Spaghetti-Saurus. This advertisement was shown 36 times and achieved 650 housewife and children ratings. It resulted in the brand share by Spaghetti-Saurus in Yorkshire reaching 6 per cent.
It is incomprehensible to me that television companies that have little difficulty in persuading advertisers that time on television affects people's behaviour are then at great pains to tell us that to show 200,000 violent incidents during an average lifetime has an unproven or a negligible effect. Advertisers are only too keen to spend money on this medium. Television accounts for approximately 40 per cent. of all display advertising. The top 20 brands spend nearly 60 per cent. of their advertising budget on television. British Telecom, Tesco, Nescafé, the Halifax Building Society, Whiskas, Bold and Asda all figure large in the advertising. Similarly, a major part of the advertising expenditure on the Trustee Savings bank's share promotion and on the British Gas share promotion was by means of television.
Advertisers like television because it is intrusive and catches the complete attention of its audience when it is in a relaxed and receptive mood. It involves its audience emotionally and it communicates directly and memorably. The power of television advertising has been recognised since its inception by commercial television. For that reason, it is not allowed to promote cigarettes or full strength spirits. It is told that it must not prey on the fears of its audience and that it must be especially careful regarding children. It is incomprehensible that independent television companies, which are at such pains to claim that their television commercials have no damaging effects and which believe that they have such a powerful effect on human behaviour, then deny the effect of hours of television viewing upon young, impressionable minds or upon vulnerable or unstable individuals.
Similarly, there has been a spate of video learning packages. "Sight and Sound" shows what can be achieved by using a visual and verbal message. Why then deny the effects of the television visual message? Children learn consciously and unconsciously by audio-visual experiences. For many, especially for the pre-school age group, their attachment to television characters may be as great as their awareness, for example, of a distant grandmother whom they hardly see.
The causation of human behaviour is not an exact science, but our knowledge of human psychology recognises the profound influence of early experiences in the development of a personality. A child growing up in a stable home may be protected, but a child who grows up in a more turbulent, unstable setting is especially vulnerable to the impact of violent models.
It is estimated that schoolchildren watch about three hours of television each day. The evidence of psychologists suggests that the more a fictional situation approximates to the viewer's own position the greater the impact. "Cowboys and Indians", "Popeye" and "Tom and Jerry" may be violent but they are pretty remote from the life style of an individual who lives in an inner city area.

However, persistent exposure to individuals like oneself who solve their problems by resorting to violence is a source of profound concern. Recent analysis of an American programme, "Miami Vice", found that the two policemen in the programme killed four times as many people as the entire Miami police force killed in a year. They killed at 12,000 times the rate at which the average American policeman kills. If all American policemen killed at the same rate as the two policemen in "Miami Vice", they would kill off the entire population of America within two years.
It is also estimated that by the age of 16 the average American sees on television 200,000 acts of violence and 50,000 attempted murders.
Television violence has particular dangers for the isolated and the elderly, often living alone, who fear violent assault. In my constituency, where fortunately there is little violent assault, the chances of an old lady being attacked in the street are only a little greater than the chances of her being hit by a flying saucer, but the fact is that many old people live in fear because of the frightening films and programmes that they see on television. Much more serious is the cumulative effect that a constant diet of violent television can have on an individual's perception of normality and its influence on standards of acceptable behaviour. This desensitising effect results in individuals becoming more tolerant of violence. Only recently a youth was publicly stabbed at the Embankment tube station while bystanders took no notice.
What is even more serious is the proposition that television actually evokes a violent response. The figures are powerful. In 1955, there were 7,884 crimes of violence. In 1982, there were over 105,000. I do not suggest for a moment that the cause of this violence is simply television viewing, but the increase in violence coincides with the dramatic increase in television ownership. To disregard the influence of a constant stream of violent models is to disregard a significant and important factor. There is evidence of imitation from various sources. When "The Deerhunter" was shown on television in America, there was a spate of suicides by Russian roulette. In Britain there was a significant increase in attempted suicide, following the example of Angie in "EastEnders".
Television owes its potency to the fact that it comes right into the home. Most other forms are distanced from the individual by a journey to the cinema or the theatre or by the written word or a picture. Television is irresistibly lifelike. Some would extend the argument to cover news programmes. In South Africa, the danger of stirring up unrest and causing copycat incidents is given as the justification for censorship. I understand the argument, but I dismiss it. While I believe that this necessitates sensitive and responsible handling of news stories and the avoidance of provocation by news reporters, it does not lead me to the conclusion that we should operate an oppressive news censorship.
We should study productively the development of the link between smoking and cancer. Ten years ago, tobacco companies argued that the case was unproven. Now, many deaths later, the connection is accepted as a fact.
There was a series of splendid guidelines on violence in 1972, 1977, 1978 and 1979. One said:
There should in all cases be a proper reason for the inclusion of violence in the script of any piece of violent dramatic writing. It is inexcusable to include it if the reason is merely to bring excitement to a dull piece of writing.


However, it is remarkable that 200,000 such proper reasons can be found in the lifetime of an average American. The 1978 guideline said:
The only safe course is for broadcasting authorities to assume undesirable effects unless convincing evidence to the contrary emerges.
I agree; so do many others. However, there is remarkably little to show for it. Legislation is not an ideal solution, but there is a growing body of opinion that action has to be taken to reassure the public. We should look again at the suggestion that a broadcasting council should be established, whose report the House could debate annually. It is difficult for the BBC governors or for the IBA to distinguish between their roles as guardians of the public and also as broadcasting authorities which engage in a ratings war.
We should review the 9 pm threshold. It is frequently alleged that 9 pm is somehow a watershed. On every occasion that research has been undertaken, it has been shown that many hundreds of thousands of children view television after 9 pm. If the broadcasting authorities wish to continue the 9 pm threshold, they should take further steps to draw it to the attention of the public. It is by no means fully understood as a watershed. This should not be done by the gimmick used by Channel 4. Its red and white triangle inevitably draws greater attention to the particular programmes involved.
Above all, we deserve more research and openness. There should be further research with the sort of investment to which I referred earlier in establishing the effectiveness of advertising. Much of this is appropriate to this discussion. There should above all be more openness. The Wyatt committee—in its last report for the BBC—suggested that the number of violent incidents should be reported to the governors quarterly. I understand that that happens, but it is not made public. We have had a further set of guidelines from the BBC in recent weeks. Once more there have been pious thoughts and ideas with which it is difficult to disagree, but until there is a greater openness and a real commitment to discuss the influence of violence on our young, we shall continue at Christmas to see many of our youngsters watching endless episodes of mindless violence.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The word "sceptical" is not one which initially comes into my mind when I think of the Leader of the House. I prefer to think that he is a sensitive man, and I do not think that he would object if hon. Members thought it right at this stage of the year to remind him to remind the Government that the Disabled Persons Services, Consultation and Representation Act 1986, which was given so much support, has not yet been implemented.
On Third Reading of that Bill on 11 April the House was at its best. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, being very much a House of Commons man, has not overlooked the fact that the Act was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House from various parts of Britain and from almost every political group that might be envisaged. Because the Act was given so much support in the House and in the country, it would be a mass betrayal of millions of people, with which the Leader of the House would not wish to be associated, if the present departmental lethargy were allowed to continue and that Act were not implemented in a meaningful way.
The Bill, which in due course became an Act, witnessed a major contribution from civil servants, local authority associations and, above all, voluntary organisations. For a Government who, we are told, believe in voluntaryism, it is appalling that they are paying such little regard to organisations such as Mencap, the Spastics Society, the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped and many more which gave such support, thought and consideration to the Act and the problems of the disabled.
Because of the concern of hon. Members on both sides of the House about the delay in implementing the Act, I tabled several parliamentary questions—more than a dozen— to various Ministers which recieved replies on 4 December—almost all of them, I regret to say, profoundly disappointing. Let me give just a few examples.
I questioned the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland because the Government, despite the views of the House and of another place, and despite the promises which were given in the House and in anothere place, still have not said whether the Act should apply to Northern Ireland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) told me in his reply that the Government were consulting interested Government Departments in Northern Ireland. There was nothing about other voluntary organisations, disabled persons in Northern Ireland, or those who live day after day with the problems of disability. That aspect of the Government's approach is extremely disappointing.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), replying for the Department of Health and Social Security, said that consultations with voluntary organisations would take place only under section 1. It would be a major pity if the voluntary organisations, which have shown such an awareness of the problem and how keen they are, were not emulated by the Government. The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and the National Association for Mental Health, influenced by such excellent men as John Healey, Peter Mitchell and William Bingley, have published a plain person's guide—the kind of document that I invited the Government to produce, but I had no response. It explains to all who want to know what the Act means and how best it might be applied to their particular circumstances.
The House will remember that sections 5 and 6 were on the crucial question of school leavers. That is a traumatic age for young persons leaving special school and for the parents who find that circumstances have completely changed and who have to meet a huge number of problems, domestic as well as educational. We were told by the Minister that, having consulted local authorities, it was thought that the resource implications were greater than those that were originally envisaged. The House is entitled to know what was said during those discussions. Certainly the local authority associations gave excellent support to the Bill as it made its way through both Houses, and they were aware, and said so openly and honestly, that there would be resource implications. Nobody on either side of the House, including those hon. Members who spoke during the many debates, was in any doubt that there would be resource implications. Therefore, it is not enough for the Treasury to influence the Government to the point where the will of Parliament is being undermined because it thinks that the time is not right to give local authorities the resources that are necessary to give the Act true meaning.
On the specific problem of school leavers it should be said that a failure to implement the Act immediately will prevent the identification of 14-year-olds and thus endanger school leavers in 1988 and those leaving further education in 1991. We are falling behind even in terms of planning for the future and I am sure that most hon. Members would regard such lethargy as deplorable.
On 4 July, when we were considering Lords amendments, we were promised that a number of sections within the Act would be implemented in April next year. There is little sign of that and much time has been lost. Orders would have to be introduced well in advance of that time, but they have not been. Circulars would have to be prepared to go out in January, and that is clearly not in the Government's mind.
I hope that the Leader of the House, with his commitment to Parliament and to the disabled, will feel that the 5·5 million disabled persons in Britain and their carers—those who took part in a big lobby of Parliament and influenced our decisions on the matter—will consider that, whereas it was right that this long overdue and comprehensive legislation should have been carried by both Houses, it would be an act of utter cynicism, if not betrayal, if the Government sat aside and did nothing and failed to implement the main provisions of that Act.
We approach Christmas in the knowledge that many disabled people and their carers will have a miserable Christmas because, alas, for them Christmas day is not all that different from other days. It would be a tragedy if the House, having committed itself to this measure, did not encourage the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to apply themselves urgently to the problems that this legislation highlights.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: In the second speech in the debate the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) said that he wanted a debate about uncertainty and for that purpose he asked for the Adjournment of the House to be postponed. If there is such an opportunity, I should like to raise two matters about uncertainty to which I hope the Government can give their attention. The first is about the Health Service in Southend. Like many areas in Southend, my constituency suffers from the consequences of a review of our radiotherapy or cancer treatment services. The same thing is happening throughout Britain, and our regional health authority, although recommended by officials to retain Southend as a centre for radiotherapy, opted by a majority to go for a new unit in Harold Wood in Essex which will cost an additional £4·5 million.
This is a matter about which people can argue and about which my constituents have strong views. This recommendation was made in July and cannot come into effect or be rejected until the Secretary of State for Social Services makes his decision. We have been told that under the existing procedures it will not be possible for the Government to come to a decision until about July or August.
I and my colleagues will be seeking to persuade the Minister to make what we regard as the right decision, but it would be quite wrong to take up time in a debate like this on arguments about the merits. Because of this

procedure, my constituents, the doctors in my constituency and all the people who work in Southend general hospital face more than a year of uncertainty, delay and distress. The uncertainty certainly causes distress, bearing in mind that we have about 1,600 new patients every year in our hospital. Is it possible for the Government to take steps to ensure that decisions on vital services are made within a reasonable time? I accept that if the decision goes the wrong way for Southend it will cause great grief, anxiety and hardship, but unnecessary further distress is caused by the delays in decision making.
I should like to raise on the same basis the matter of uncertainty in education. We have in our area Essex county council, one of those rather unusual bodies which is extremely good at interfering with things that are working well but not good at sorting out real problems. In Southend we have a rather excellent education service which appears to command general acceptance and appreciation. About a year ago Essex county council published a green paper proposing that sixth forms should be taken from my comprehensive secondary schools to create a new sixth form college, and that a substantial number of our excellent Southend grammar schools should be closed or fundamentally changed.
On the basis of the Government's excellent policy statements, I take the view that there is not the slightest chance of these rather unusual proposals being approved by the Government. However, there has been uncertainty for at least a year and it seems that we shall have uncertainty for at least another year. Bearing in mind that the Secretary of State for Education has clear powers of decision making about accepting or rejecting a major reorganisation, might there not be a case for him laying down clear guidelines about his policies in order to deter county councils from putting forward plans which have little, if any, chance of acceptance?
If we had a Labour or a Liberal Government, obviously the criteria would be totally different from those of a Conservative Government, but the same argument applies irrespective of which party is in power. A huge amount of uncertainty among parents, teachers and children in secondary schools would be avoided if we had clear guidelines from Ministers about the attitudes they adopt to proposals for reorganisation. I have been in the House for some time and believe that uncertainty and delay can cause as much distress and hardship as bad decisions.
I know that, traditionally, the Leader of the House has taken an interest in the rights of the House. Would it be possible to have just an extra half day to discuss the various crises in the EEC? We know that there is a cash crisis which is probably more serious now than it has ever been. We thought we had it under control because of Fontainebleau but, sadly, we heard the other day from the Prime Minister that there seems to be some kind of fault in the Fontainebleau mechanism and that if we want our rebates we will have to give even more money.
We know that there is a crisis in agriculture and that more than £100 million is being spent every week on dumping and storing food surpluses. However, the Leader of the House will be more anxious about the effect of the EEC on our parliamentary sovereignty. I have been summoned to attend a Committee of the House on Wednesday morning to discuss a provisional statutory instrument called the Lawnmowers (Harmonisation of Noise Emission Standards) Regulations. These are remarkable regulations and the Government have said in


parliamentary answers that they would prefer them not to happen at all. But we have to apply them and that means that we have to set up nine testing stations throughout the United Kingdom for the sole purpose of testing lawnmowers. It is also provided that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will appoint a group of inspectors whose task it will be to go around the country to test the noise of lawnmowers.
People may think that this is a good thing if it curbs the noise made by lawnmowers, but of course it does not do that. That is done by the Noise Abatement Act which is properly implemented by our local authorities. These regulations will ensure that all lawnmowers, from John O'Groats to Salonica, will make the same Euro noise. The job of the inspectors will be to go around testing to make sure that lawnmowers all make the same sweet sound. Although I know that the Committee will look at this matter carefully, urgently and properly, even if the Committee members all decide that the regulations are a load of rubbish that, unfortunately, will have no effect whatever because the regulations are now the law of the land.
The other place is currently discussing the Consumer Protection Bill which is shortly to come to this House. That will make it unlawful for the Government to demand that traders should display on goods whether the goods are made in Britain, Japan, Turkey or Taiwan or anywhere else. The Government's power to do that is being abolished or has been abolished by a decision of the European Commission which we have to implement. Once again, we have no powers because we are told that we have not a hope if the matter goes to the European Court. In about March, we will hear the results of the case in which Britain is being taken to court for the great crime that we do not charge VAT on new house building, on gas or electricity or on industrial clothing.
As the Leader of the House well knows, whatever the court decides we will have to do. Irrespective of whether or not hon. Members think that there are great advantages in having harmonised lawnmower noise throughout the European Community, or whether they think it is a bad thing that people should be deprived of the right to buy British goods if they want them or might think it is a good thing to have VAT on new houses, our powers of decision making have been taken away in these and in many other areas and I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree that it would be wise and prudent if we were to delay our recess for half a day to discuss these rather important points.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The subject that I want to raise has a bearing on the Government, and it is to the Government that I want to address my remarks. My speech is about matters that are happening far away from us in Brazil, Peru, Colombia and Ecuador.
Last week a delegation of representatives of the Amazon Indians visited Britain. The delegation was led by Evaristo Aguaruna, a Peruvian Indian and a recipient of the 1986 alternative Nobel Peace Prize with which he received a $25,000 cheque in Scandanavia and which will be used to benefit his people. The other delegates were Jose Narciso Jamioey, the secretary of Colombia's principal Indian organisation, Alvaro Tukano from Brazil and Jose Uranavi, the president of the Indian organisation of Bolivia. Their purpose in coming to this country was to

seek support from people in Britain and, indeed, throughout Europe for a meeting that they are holding with the president of the World Bank on Wednesday morning. On Saturday afternoon, I had the pleasure of meeting them and addressing a meeting with them in my borough of Islington. They were describing a process of destruction of their people, their homelands, their lives and the tropical rain forest that they have inhabited for centuries. They were pleading for some understanding and help from people in western Europe of the indignities and humiliations that they have suffered for a long time.
Seventy-five years ago, a young traveller, Mr. W. E. Hardenburg, who had visited Brazil and the Amazon rain forest region, came back to the House of Commons and in a meeting room described and levelled charges against the British Peruvian Rubber Company for what it was doing at that time in the Amazon rain forest. He said:
The agents of the company force the … Indians … to work day and night… without the slightest remuneration except the food necessary to keep them alive. They are robbed of their crops, their women, and their children to satisfy the voracity, lasciviousness, and avarice of this company and its employees, who live on their food and violate their women. They are flogged inhumanely until their bones are laid bare … they are left to die, eaten by maggots, when they serve as food for … dogs. They are castrated and mutilated, and their ears, fingers, arms and legs are cut off. They are tortured by … tying them up, crucified head down.
Mr. Hardenburg went on with a description of so many other things that happened to people at that time.
If that was merely a horrific tale of what was happening 75 years ago, it would be an important point of historical document. The tragedy is that the indignities that the Indian people suffered at that time and throughout the rubber boom are continuing. Indeed, from the time that history began in the Amazon rain forest area the Indian population reached a maximum of 6 million and it has been cut to 200,000, most of the loss of population occurring during the past 100 years. People in Britain, Brazil and world wide must understand that the Amazon rain forest is not a place for agricultural colonisation. It cannot support an agricultural system in the way that lands in Europe or America can support it. Nor can it be used merely as a basis for exploitation by multinational mining corporations, which are destroying the lives of the indigenous people of that region.
If the world allows the tropical rain forest, be it in the Amazon, Indonesia or anywhere else, to be destroyed at the rate at which it is being destroyed, the consequences for the world ecosystem are very serious. The Governments of the world must address themselves to this. The illegal gangs that maraud round the rain forests in Brazil and other countries in the Amazon basin, driving people from their land, and murdering people wholesale to make way for the roads, railways and mining companies, are working on behalf of the world's Governments, who choose to do nothing about them. One could quote many examples of what is going on.
Those who have examined and studied the area very closely recognise the danger of destruction of the tropical rain forests. They also recognise that the imperial attitude that Europe and North America have taken towards the rain forest in the past has been a central part of the problem. Claude Levi-Strauss, the distinguished anthropologist, described
that monstrous and incomprehensible cataclysim which the development of Western civilisation was for so large and innocent a part of humanity.


He was describing the way in which the lives of the Indian people throughout the Amazon rain forest have been destroyed.
My purpose in raising the matter tonight is partly because it should be raised in Parliaments throughout the world, and this is an opportunity to raise it. I also raise it because the Governments of the world have chosen to turn their backs on what they call the forgotten peoples of the Amazon region, as they have the peoples of other rain forest areas, because in the drive to get raw materials for the industrial world, it means riding roughshod over the lives of people who happen to inhabit land under which there is iron ore, coal, any sort of mineral, oil or whatever else; and also because, despite agreements that have been reached in the past with the representatives of the Indian peoples of the Amazon region, the World Bank and the European Economic Community are still going ahead with funding programmes and projects which are entirely detrimental to the immediate interests of the Indian peoples of that region, and detrimental in the long term to the interests of the whole world.
We must not continue to destroy tropical rain forests at the speed at which they are being destroyed and laying waste the Amazon basin so that it becomes a desert. I visited the Amazon basin long before I came into the House. There is something frightening about seeing a road driven through what one believes is a lush and rich rain forest. Because that vegetation is removed and because of the high rainfall, there is huge erosion and run-off and in a very short time a desert is created in an area of very high rainfall which, traditionally, people would say was impossible to achieve.
The two projects that I wish to draw to the attention of the House are funded by the European Economic Community and by the World Bank. Before I do that, I shall quote something that the World Bank wrote to Survival International in 1981 in response to that excellent organisation's pressure on it to act more responsibly in giving loans to the countries of the Amazon region to ensure the rights of the Amerindian people. The World Bank states:
The Bank is seeking meaningful agreements with the Brazilian government for the protection of the Amerindians' rights as part of its discussions on lending for the development of the Polonoroeste region. It has carefully reviewed FUNAI's 'Projeto de Apoio as Comunidades Indigenas da Area de Influencia da Rodovia Cuiaba Porto Velho', the contents of which are part of the ongoing dialogue between the government and the Bank. This dialogue has already yielded positive results thanks to the confidentiality of the conversations and we hope that it is not your intention to undermine this progress.

I am not sure what is meant by "this progress", but after some discussion and debate the World Bank adopted a set of criteria for lending money to the Amazon region, which included respect for tribal lands, the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples in that region and an undertaking that medical facilities would be provided for them where developments took place. Specifically and crucially, it included the rights of Amazon peoples to have their lands demarcated and the protection of the indigenous way of life in that region. They are key components to any agreement.
The first of the two projects that I wish to bring to the attention of the House—I trust that the Leader of the House will pass this on to British Government

representatives dealing with these matters in the World Bank and at the United Nations—is the Grande Carajas programme in Brazil. Its total cost is enormous. I wish to concentrate on the EEC loan in 1982 of $600 million to this programme. The reason for that loan lies in the importance of the project to future deliveries of iron ore to the EEC steel industries. The contracts contain favourable pricing conditions to the EEC and will help to preserve the competitiveness of the European steel industry. But the hidden costs of the programme have not been given so much attention.
There are land conflicts and wild land speculation. Gangs of pistoleiros are active in the area, evicting peasants from their homelands. About 5,000 Indians are at particular risk. If one dam construction takes place 3,600 Indians' lives will be severely damaged, if not destroyed. One completed dam will flood an area of about 100,000 hectares belonging to one Indian tribe. That will lead to the removal of the Indians from the region and the destruction of their lifestyle, with no compensation.
If the loan is going ahead, I want the Government to ask the EEC Commissioner why and what will be done to protect the lives of Indian people in the region. Equally importantly, what will be done to protect the ecosystem of the Amazon rain forest? Is British taxpayers' money being used through the EEC in the shortsighted and brutal destruction of these people's lives?
The second development that I want to mention is the Polonoroeste development programe in western Amazonia. The project is funded by the World Bank, which at one stage held up funding because it was concerned about the plight of the Indian people in the region. Funding was subsequently reinstated, and that is why a delegation is to see the president of the World Bank on Wednesday morning. The World Bank is continuing to support this notorious scheme despite the death of Indians and despite the fact that funding was suspended because of pressure in the United States that that should happen. It is ironic that these Indian people have lived peaceably and effectively in the region for centuries. They have protected the ecosystem of the river basin; they have protected the forest because they understand it and know how to manage it. There is to be a meeting on Wednesday morning of the representatives of the Indian people of the Amazonia region and the president of the World Bank, and the president, who works in the interests of national Governments and multinational corporations, should understand that the Indian people probably know far more about the Amazon rain forest and protecting the ecology of the area than he will ever learn. He should give them a fair hearing.
Above all, the British Government should understand the depth of destruction and murder that is taking place in the name of Britain because we are hoping to fund the programme. As the settlers, loggers and mining companies move in, the Indian people have been given so-called reserves which have been violated time after time. This has been done by the mining companies which wish to take over the land. Murder takes place on a huge scale along with other illegal activities.
When representatives of the Indian people are prepared to travel to Europe to seek our help, the least that we can do is listen to them and demand that European national Governments pay some heed to what is going on. If these matters were given the publicity that they deserve, there would be considerable support for the case that


Amerindians are advancing to the World Bank and enormous pressure on national Governments to make the World Bank work in the interests of the people in the region rather than destroy their lives.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I hope that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will forgive me if I do not take up his remarks. I want to bring the attention of the House to a serious matter which is close to home.
I do not believe that the House should rise for the Christmas recess until the case of my constituent, Miss Maureen McGoldrick, has been debated and the House is of a mind to protect this gallant and wonderful teacher from continuing persecution by the Brent Labour council.
The Brent council must be spending large sums on advertising for teachers. I have an example in which it gaily says in a teachers' publication that teachers should go to Brent. The advertisement reads:
Brent Education: come and join us. Brent offers a wide range of advantages to teachers. It is a small, friendly and exciting borough that will give every assistance to teachers.
If we consider its actions, the position is very different from this picture. It is not surprising that there is an absence of head teachers in the borough at a number of schools. There is a drain of assistant teachers from other schools and an increasingly serious education position for the children.
I want to ask the House to consider the case of Miss McGoldrick. It is well established that she was accused of racism by the Brent education committee, it being said that she had made a racist remark. The case was considered by her school board of governors, which found her not guilty. The High Court heard the case and found Miss McGoldrick not guilty. It found that the governors were correct in finding her not guilty originally. Brent council then sought to establish in the courts that it had the right to discipline a teacher, and it did so. That right was established.
Although the courts had asked that Miss McGoldrick should be left alone, Brent council returned to the case and said that she would face further disciplinary proceedings. The present position is that she has today been before the courts once more. Brent education committee has been told that, for the moment, it cannot proceed against her, but it said that it will not drop its case, whatever that case may be. It has still not specified its case but it is accepted that it is not one of racism.
Miss McGoldrick, who has been on the line since June this year, continues to be in a state of agony and tension caused by the hard Left Labour authority. It is good that the leader of the Labour party should offer support to Miss McGoldrick and try to dissuade the Brent Labour council from its behaviour against her. It is typical that the Socialists in Brent council have told the national executive of the Labour party that they are not in the least interested in its views. It is additionally bad that it took the leadership of the Labour party some four or five months to get off its hands and support Miss McGoldrick. If the leadership had acted earlier and had supported me and others—the National Union of Teachers among them—who have been working hard on Miss McGoldrick's behalf, the matter might not have reached the present point.
How far should the Brent education committee be allowed to go? The committee continues to persecute Miss McGoldrick, in defiance of public opinion, and in defiance of opinion across the gamut of politics. That persecution is damaging to the lady involved, her school, the children, the parents, the school governors, the community that the school serves, and the concept of a board of governors. It is also enormously damaging to race relations. Still it goes on. I see Miss McGoldrick from time to time. I see the effect that that persecution is having upon her.
The House cannot stand by any longer. We need to have a debate. Hon. Members must urge the Secretary of State for Education and Science to use his powers under section 68 of the Education Act 1944. He must intervene and tell Brent education committee that it must not proceed against Miss McGoldrick and that she must be free to continue to run her school, free of the pressure that the committee had brought against her. There is no reason why that should not be done immediately. If that were to happen, the effect upon Miss McGoldrick would be enormous. At last, she would be relieved of the heavy persecuting hand of an evil Left Labour authority that seems to be prepared to stop at nothing in its harassment of her. That great gain is needed.
The scars that this action has inflicted upon Miss McGoldrick will never be removed. She has said that she will always be scarred by what has happened. She has resolution and a love of her profession, her job and the children in her school. She has the will to serve the community and to do a professional job as a head teacher. Those qualities will combine to sustain her in continuing in her post to the best of her ability. That shows how great a lady is Miss McGoldrick and how small is the Brent education authority.
In calling for a debate about Miss McGoldrick and about the need for the Secretary of State to intervene in the way I have suggested, I hope that we shall see a compromise in the teachers' pay and conditions dispute. A compromise is not only possible but essential. The teaching profession is seriously divided and cannot agree on the offer made by the local education authorities. Unions are divided against unions, and, within unions, teachers are divided against teachers. It happened in 1963, when the then Minister of Education imposed a settlement. I hope that there will not be imposition this time. Unless there is a compromise between the deal put forward by local education authorities and the Secretary of State's proposals, grave difficulties will remain, and the profession will not settle down. There needs to be a compromise between the number of promotional opportunities suggested by the local education authorities and those suggested by the Secretary of State. Between the two, there is room for compromise, and I hope that that will come about.

Mr. Harry Cohen: The House should not adjourn until we have discussed the scandal of poverty pay. Low incomes will mar many a merry Christmas this year and, indeed, in future years under this Government. They will also blight many a happy new year. We should discuss that serious problem.
The trouble is that the Government see low pay not as a problem but as a solution to the country's economic ills. They have deliberately engineered lower pay, for example, by shackling the trade unions and curbing their bargaining


rights. They have brought in new laws and used the courts. It is no accident that pay is 10 per cent. lower on average in non-unionised firms than in those with trade unions.
The Government have scrapped the Clegg comparability commission, which compared equal pay for equal work in the public and private sectors. The Government repealed schedule 2 of the Employment Protection Act 1975, which provided for a fair rate for the job. They cut maternity and unfair dismissal rights. They changed the national insurance scales to encourage employers to pay low wages. They abolished the wages councils, which protected 3 million low-paid workers, 2·25 million of whom were women. The Government cut the wages inspectorate by 40 per cent. They have brought in privatisation, which has resulted in low-wage employees having their wages undercut by private firms paying lower wages.
The result of those changes has been a huge rise in poverty. Low pay is now the single biggest cause of poverty. A parliamentary answer that the Government sneaked out just before the end of the summer recess showed that 16·3 million people are living below the poverty level, and that 8·5 million, or one third of the total work force, earn less than the EEC decency threshold of £115 a week. Some 3 million full-time workers earn less than £100 a week and 1 million less than £80 a week.
Women are particularly hard hit by low pay, with half of all those who work full time earning less than the EEC decency threshold. Three quarters of all women in manual jobs earn less than that. The number of men earning wages below the threshold has doubled since 1979 from 10 per cent to 20 per cent. Young people's pay has fallen by almost one third, while youth unemployment has doubled in that time. An increasing proportion of young workers are forced into part-time work, which they do not want because they want full-time jobs. The Government's own so-called training schemes are the worst of the payers, denying those youngsters the opportunity to build independent lives.
The number of families on low pay, who rely on family income supplement to top up their earnings, has more than trebled since 1979. I and many other Members of Parliament see the consequences at our constituency advice surgeries. There is increasing indebtedness, eviction, fuel cut-offs and poor health. There are crises with the Department of Health and Social Security in ever-increasing numbers.
It is the children who suffer most from the effects of those policies. The Government have been trying to justify them with a series of myths and lies, the two biggest ones being that they are creating the conditions for a recovery and that people are pricing themselves out of jobs.
Recovery is nowhere in sight, unemployment is steadily increasing and interest rates are still through the roof. But company profits have risen three times faster than personal income. The hulk has been invested abroad—some £96 million since 1979. The recovery argument is a myth.
As for people pricing themselves out of jobs, that is a falsehood as well. No evidence has been produced that lower wages result in more jobs. The United Kingdom's wage levels are below those of our main competitors, yet we have far and away the worst unemployment problem.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way at this point in his interesting speech. Does he accept that, in the area which I represent compared with the rest of London and the south-east, wage levels are low, yet unemployment has always been twice the regional average and is now well above the national average? This seems to disprove the idea that if people accept low wages the jobs automatically follow.

Mr. Cohen: That is a key point which I want to make. Unemployment is highest in the regions. In areas such as my constituency and that of my hon. Friend, unemployment is high but we face the severest low-pay problem.
Low-paid workers are customers, so keeping their wages low makes matters worse, because they have less money to spend. If the Government believe that lower pay creates more jobs, why have they not applied that idea to the wages of the high paid? They have done the opposite.
The London Evening Standard of 6 November contained a list of those people whose pay had increased enormously. For example, Sir John Nott, chairman of the merchant bank of Lazards, doubled his salary to £366,436 last year. As the article said:
He was among hundreds of top City staff earning six-figure pay packets even before the Big Bang.
The article continued:
24 directors and nine employees earn more than £250,000 a year.
Another 361 directors and 667 employees in 42 companies earned more than £100,000 prior to the summer round of recruitment.
The article continued:
 'Golden Hellos' of more than £100,000 have become commonplace among merchant banks buying stockbrokers, jobbers and other staff".
Compare that to the wage slips of my constituents in Whipps Cross hospital. Mr. Poole, a district transport driver, worked 40 hours plus 41 hours overtime on Saturday morning for £85·90. Compare that with Sir John Nott's salary.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is it right that Sir John Nott is earning £1,000 a day? If so, he had better be doing better for that than he did as Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. Cohen: I endorse those comments.
Mr. Jenkins, a stores porter, worked 40 hours in a five-day week for £70·30 a week. It will hardly be a merry Christmas for a family man. That type of inequality is the Tory Government's hallmark.
Tackling unemployment and low pay must be the foremost priority of the next Labour Government, because the Tory Government have failed miserably on both counts. As well as modernising British industry and investing for jobs, the Government must apply measures that will eliminate poverty pay. To do that, we must recognise the reasons for low pay. They include the lack of skills, the fact that those skills that do exist are systematically undervalued, and the lack of trade unions to resist unscrupulous employers. To tackle the lack of skills, we need a programme of real training which uses our colleges—instead of applying financial cuts to them—and encourages apprenticeships.
The systematic undervaluing of skills applies to many women and black workers. We must tackle discrimination in that regard. There should be equal pay for work of equal value and fair work and promotion opportunities. As for the unscrupulous employers, Labour must encourage


trade union protection and collective bargaining. We must strengthen employment protection, not weaken it. There should be an increase in the number of staff in the wages inspectorate, and wages councils should be established with real powers. The enforcement powers of both should be strengthened.
We should work for the replacement of overtime with a higher level of basic pay. With such a level, statutory limits on overtime might be appropriate. It is crazy that, because of low pay, people should have to work long hours when 4 million others have no work at all. The key to those proposals to tackle low pay must be a statutory minimum wage. That represents a massive advance in Labour's programme. The figure must be significant. I should like it to be in three figures, but £80 has been mooted. I believe that that is too low, but even it would benefit 1 million workers. The wage should be uprated annually and apply pro rata to part-time workers. It would have a knock-on effect with those who are paid above the minimum but still well below average earnings.
Labour has made great strides and its proposals will be immensely popular with the public, especially the low-paid. We must make this into an election issue because the comparison between the two major parties could not be more stark.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak as I was unlucky enough to be drawn 35th out of 35 in the ballot for the Consolidated Fund Bill debate later tonight, when I would have spoken on trunk road designation for the Blackburn road bypass in Bolton.
I should like time for a full debate on this matter, which is of great importance to my constituents who have been denied this much-needed road by the council's failure to give the case proper consideration. I have applied each week for an Adjournment debate, and I look forward to debating the matter if the House should sit for longer.
Plans for the bypass were laid many years ago. Indeed, the council has owned the land for more than 10 years. Conservative councillors have consistently pressed for this much needed road, and it was the Labour-controlled Greater Manchester council which first shelved the plans. Now that we have abolished the GMC, the opportunity has returned to Bolton council to go ahead with the long delayed plan for a road which is needed much more today than it was 10 years ago.
The proposed new road would help motorists who use the A667 and the A666 north of the town and pedestrians who live near them. It has been estimated that those two roads—Tonge Moor road and Blackburn road—carry 15 per cent. more traffic than the nearby M61. Last Friday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited my constituency and was a most welcome guest at the Astley Bridge Conservative club, which lies close to Blackburn road where it intercepts the ring road. After leaving the club, I understand, she was delayed by the traffic jam on Blackburn road. I am sorry that that happened, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend now appreciates the problems that my constituents face every day when they are trying to get to work.
Over a year ago I had occasion to present my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister with a petition signed by 3,500 constituents, protesting at the granting of planning permission to build 500 houses on Birtenshaw farm. The

principal objection was the extra traffic which would be created, causing the present jams at Bradshaw Brow and elsewhere to become intolerable. I have already mentioned the problems of pedestrians, but I should add that over 700 constituents have petitioned for a pedestrian crossing at Bradshaw Brow where they have to take their life into their hands each time they cross the road. The traffic engineers tell me that there is no easy answer, owing to the extent of the existing traffic congestion.
I have applied to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make the proposed new road a trunk road and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has said that he will consider the case for trunking the road to see if it fits the necessary criteria. Whether it does or does not, the decision at present rests with Bolton council. The chamber of commerce has made representations to the council about the economic importance of the road and if the council were prepared to do more than pay lip service to creating jobs, it would not hesitate to go ahead with the road, instead of wasting money on lunatic schemes to display the unemployment total on the town hall.
I am amazed that the Labour council should have turned down the bypass plans on the grounds that the road would serve only the Conservative dormatories on the north of the town. In doing so it seems blind to the need to improve the quality of life of all who live on Tonge Moor road and Blackburn road and of all those who risk injury on the present roads, which have the worst accident record of any roads in Bolton.
How much longer must this carnage persist? One of my constituents has been evicted from his home as a result of losing his livelihood from a serious accident earlier this year. He and his family have no certainty of compensation for his injuries.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has said that Bolton is historically deprived of trunk roads. I should like the opportunity for more parliamentary time to debate the need for this road to be improved, and I trust that time can be made available for this debate.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I have a simple request: that the Leader of the House takes a little time to read the speech which I made earlier this evening on four issues.
First, there is a need for the Security Commission to convert itself into a tribunal to consider who in Government authorises house-breaking to gain intelligence. I referred to the break-in at Sidgwick and Jackson and to the break-in for information about Anthony Blunt's testimony. We have heard a great deal about telephone tapping, but house-breaking is parallel, if not more serious. The matter affects Governments, and some statement should be made before we go into recess.
The second issue relates to telephone tapping. On 8 December, Mr. Speaker, you kindly wrote to me enclosing an answer from the Prime Minister to you, in which she stated the policy in parliamentary answers. Since then I have read out a long script which I ask the Leader of the House to look at tomorrow. Mr. Speaker and the Clerks are not a detective agency. It is unreasonable—I flatter you not, Sir—to suggest that you can answer the questions asked. It is incumbent on the Leader of the House to give some explanations about potential interference with the telephones of Members of Parliament.
Thirdly, I came 24th in the ballot, which will have no greater effect than coming 35th, as the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) did, and intended to raise the question of the role of the Attorney-General in the Westland affair. We are coming to the first anniversary of those events. Does the Leader of the House not think that the Attorney-General owes us an explanation why he felt it necessary to threaten the Cabinet Secretary with the prospect of action by the Director of Public Prosecutions or the police if an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the leaking of the Solicitor-General's letter was not authorised? It is no good the Government saying that those matters will go away. The role of the Law Officers in Westland, and in the Peter Wright case, must be discussed, together with the fact that it took 10 days between 27 November when the Leader of the Opposition first asked about what the Attorney-General had or had not done and whether he had been present, and Sir Robert Armstrong's apology in court. It is high time that hon. Members had more than 10 minutes in which to cross question the Attorney-General. I shall sit down at 9.30 pm as promised.
Fourthly, as a new year resolution, will the Leader of the House prevail on the Prime Minister, when she answers questions referring to previous questions, to give the column and date for them in Hansard? The practice has developed of the Prime Minister referring hon. Members to previous questions, when in reality the question that has been put has not been answered. That is a parliamentary sleight of hand of which we should be ashamed.

Mr. Peter Shore: These Adjournment debates provide an opportunity for hon. Members on both sides of the House to raise matters of great concern to their constituents or to them. The speeches made were very worth while. Indeed, no fewer than 16 right hon. and hon. Members managed to fit their speeches into the time available and the Leader of the House will have quite a problem to reply to all the many and valid points that were made.
Opposition Members have, almost inevitably, concentrated on matters of the greatest concern, such as unemployment. That was the first topic mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) when he spoke about the impact of the takeover of Imperial Tobacco plc and the possible closure of the Hartcliffe tobacco factory in his constituency. Those are obviously matters of great concern. I take notice especially of his point about the growing number of imports of cigarettes from Europe. That is a most unwelcome development at a time when cigarette smoking generally is in retreat—a fact which most people would welcome on larger grounds. But it is very unwelcome for our industry to be faced with the further unexpected pressure of continental imports.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) again spoke of unemployment in Scotland, especially in his constituency, where it has reached the appalling level of 18 per cent. It is indeed disturbing to hear that not just the older industries are suffering from contraction and unemployment, but that, as he put it, the sunrise industries, of which Burroughs Machines is a typical example, are facing closure. That is

a tragic warning for the future and a terrible indictment of the conduct of economic affairs in Britain in recent years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) spoke with his usual eloquence and great feeling about the prospect of the closure of Neasden geriatric hospital in his constituency. As an inner London Member of Parliament, I have a fellow feeling and share his concern. Many parts of the country have suffered from cuts in the Health Service, but I am conscious of the special impact that has been experienced in inner London. There appears to be no end in sight, despite the apparent allocation of additional funds in this year's autumn statement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) drew attention to the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, which he piloted through the House. He properly asked whether that Act was simply being shelved or, alternatively, when the first steps towards implementation would be announced. I hope that the Leader of the House will give us the answer tonight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) took an unusual but very proper subject for his speech when he spoke about the destruction of the rain forests in the Amazon and the effect of the appalling continued exploitation of the Amazonian Indians and the whole ecosystem of the planet. The example he gave of the folly of certain developments proposed by the World Bank and the EEC should be taken seriously into account.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) rightly drew attention to the great problem of low pay. As he said, not only do the Government not deplore low pay, but they actively encourage it, because they believe in this nonsense of people pricing themselves into jobs by taking ever smaller wages and salaries. As my hon. Friend said, the proper answer is a statutory minimum wage. I very much hope that we shall see that with the arrival of a new Labour Government.
Proper concerns were also expressed by Conservative Members. I very much agreed with what was said by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) when he spoke about the continued erosion of parliamentary sovereignty by the European Court and Commission not just in almost ludicrous matters, such as the harmonisation of lawnmower noises, but, more importantly, in prohibiting the labelling of British-made goods and introducing the harmonisation of VAT on new house building and many other things.
In case the hon. Gentleman gets no other mention, I must congratulate the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on drawing our attention to the plight of those victims of repression in the Soviet Union who have spoken out for human rights. We at least hope to spend Christmas in freedom in this country. It is disgraceful that people should be sent to gulags for pursuing their religious beliefs or simply for being poets. I am certainly glad that the hon. Gentleman drew attention to that matter.
The debate was opened by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison). I cannot give him any comfort, as he is a deeply pessimistic man, and perhaps rightly so, about the future of Northern Ireland. As far as I am concerned, the Taoiseach's claim to be exerting joint authority with the United Kingdom over Northern Ireland does not hold. We do not accept that the agreement gives


joint authority. We accept it as giving the Irish Government an input, but that is a very different matter from joint authority.
The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) justifiably used very strong language when he spoke about the DROPS scandal and the Boughton group. He is right to press for an independent inquiry into what happened.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) spoke about the Government's policy on the sale of arms to Iran, and that certainly needs clarifying. It is not easy to draw a sensible distinction betwen lethal and non-lethal, but in my book 50 Chieftain tank engines are lethal, and that is that.
I want to consider a subject of strong concern not only to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House but to Britain's high technology industry. I refer to the Government's forthcoming decision and choice between the airborne early warning radar system provided by Britain's Nimrod and that on offer from the American Boeing Westinghouse AWACS. That matter, which has already featured in two applications for emergency debates under Standing Order No. 20 this afternoon, was raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. It is also the subject of early-day motion 91 signed by no fewer than 78 right hon. and hon. Members from all parties.
It is clear from information leaked to the press at the weekend that the Ministry of Defence technical committee has recommended the American AWACS and that the Secretary of State for Defence will support the recommendation at Wednesday's meeting of the overseas policy and defence committee. A decision will then be ratified at Thursday's Cabinet meeting and announced to the House that afternoon.
I strongly share the concerns expressed in the Chamber today. On the question of cost, it is hardly contested that Nimrod is now the cheaper option. A total of £1 billion has already been spent on its development, and completion is estimated to be less than £500 million. To switch to AWACS at this stage will cost at least another £1 billion. There is also the question of timing. We all know that the Shackletons are an aging flight and should be replaced at the earliest possible opportunity. Eleven aircraft adapted to take the Nimrod system have already been built and will be in service just as soon as the GEC system is developed. Against that, it will be at least three years before Boeing can deliver its AWACS aircraft. To cancel Nimrod after eight years of development would be a body blow not just to GEC but to the reputation of British high technology.
The year that began with the American takeover of Westland, and in which the General Motors takeover of British Leyland and Land Rover was only narrowly averted, should not be allowed to close with a further blow to one of the most advanced sectors of British industry.
I press the Leader of the House to convey to his Cabinet colleagues the fact that it would be unacceptable to announce a decision—a fait accompli—in favour of AWACS on the eve of the recess. There should be a debate this week, before the Government take a decision, in which the whole argument, for and against, can be presented to the House. The Government should defer any decision and listen first to what the House has to say. I have no doubt that in such a debate the case for an independent appraisal of the merits of the rival systems would be urged, as the

chairman of GEC, the right hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior), recommended in his statements at the weekend.
I cannot say whether the Royal Air Force, as the right hon. Member for Waveney has alleged, has shown a continuing bias in favour of AWACS. However, we are told that the RAF failed to provide detailed specifications until 1980, and in 1982 changed its requirements in one key aspect when it demanded that Nimrod perform as well over land as over sea. It was only in March this year that GEC was given responsibility for managing the whole contract. No one disputes that progress since then has been rapid and marked. GEC has not been blameless, but the MOD is certainly not the body that should sit in judgment on the two projects. The Financial Times reports today that the Ministry of Defence decided last month to ask CAP Scientific—a United Kingdom electronics software house, which conducted a technical audit of the Nimrod programme in 1985—to undertake an independent inquiry. That was cancelled a few days later.
I contend that the House should be given a proper opportunity to debate these complex matters before a Government decision is made. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to respond postively when he replies to the debate.
Finally, will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that during this week, before the recess, there will be a proper rate support grant statement for Wales? I understand that it is ready. It would be wrong if, contrary to the normal practice, it was smuggled away into a written answer to a planted question.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has reminded us that these are variegated debates and that they cover the most extraordinarily wide range of topics. His own speech demonstrated that, as did the debate itself. I shall try to cover the points that have been raised, and I shall do so in the sequence in which they were made. I shall, of course, refer all the contributions to the relevant Departments so that they can be properly considered.
The debate was opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) with a plea that he makes with eloquence from time to time on the situation in Northern Ireland and the consequence, as he sees it, of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I note what he argues. I am sure that he will agree that it is not the first time that he has made the point, but it never loses any of its force or eloquence. It is to be regretted that we do not have with us the elected Members from Northern Ireland. They may think that they are making a point more effectively by their absence. I rather doubt it. I know that the House loses by their absence, for if ever a part of the United Kingdom is under direct military assault the proper place for the anxieties and apprehensions to be heard are from those directly affected in this Chamber.

Mr. Barry Jones: May I make the strongest protest at the proposal of the Secretary of State for Wales not to make an oral statement on rate support grant for Wales concerning figures well in excess of £1 billion annually. I am told that the excuse given is that there is parliamentary congestion. Releasing the statement


by a written answer is unacceptable. I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that there will be an oral statement for Welsh Members to ask questions on.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman makes his point forcefully. He knows that such matters are normally considered through the usual channels. I take account of his anxieties and promise that they will be considered through the usual channels. He, likewise, will appreciate that I can give no undertaking from the Dispatch Box this evening.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) raised the issue of the activities of the Hanson Trust. I thought that it was a trailer for his debate later on the Office of Fair Trading. I shall convey his points to the appropriate Department. I know, too, that the question of the pension funds from Courage Barclay has excited a certain amount of general comment. It is appropriate that those matters should be further considered by the House and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) made a serious challenge and accusation against the activities of the Ministry of Defence and, particularly, the procurement executive. Clearly he does not expect it to be cleared up this side of Christmas, although I think that that was his original suggestion. I have studied the Order Paper and noted that he has a fair number of questions for answer in early January. Therefore, it is a continuing development and I shall pass on his anxieties to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I shall also pass on the forceful and formidable way in which he put his case.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) raised an issue which I think properly concerns the House—arms shipments to countries that are combatants. He mentioned the shipments to Iran, but I am sure that he will agree that what he said could apply equally to Iraq. Throughout the Government have tried to make clear their judgment and the criteria by which they operate the export of equipment to such countries. In no sense have we sought to keep this topic "in the dark", to use the hon. Gentleman's words, but I shall pass on his points to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Trade and Industry.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland also referred to the airborne early warning system and expressed his clear preference. I accept that judgments have to be made. However, the most crucial point in any decision will be what is deemed to be most appropriate for the proper defence of this country. There are many other tests, because it is a complex subject. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that there will have to be a proper evaluation of the technical committee's recommendations. That will take place this week and the matter is expected to be the subject of a statement later this week.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to set aside the planned order of business so that there could be a debate on the matter. I have no plans to do so, but there are, of course, the usual channels through which such a request can be made. Nevertheless, I should mislead the House if I were to give the impression that that door will respond to a gentle tap.
The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) on European Music Year stood in charming distinction from the weighty AWACS issue.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: It was a very good speech.

Mr. Biffen: Yes. I thought that he was in cahoots with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who referred to lawnmowers. I am wondering whether, between them, they can find some common absurdity between European Music Year and the European regulation relating to lawnmower noise. I have taken on board my hon. Friend's anxieties about the danger of overamplified music and other noises generally. With great delicacy, I think that he was trying to tell me something about Prime Minister's Question Time.
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) referred to the serious unemployment in his constituency and the impending closure of Burroughs. He fairly conceded that that company has not been bereft of direct Government support, but anybody who has any understanding of a Member of Parliament's association with his constituency will understand clearly the point that the hon. Gentleman made.
A more general point that bolsters my case is that for six years in succession there has been economic growth and an expansion of the gross domestic product. However, unemployment remains high, notwithstanding the fact that 1 million new jobs have been created since 1983. That illustrates how uphill a struggle it is to bring about a reverse in unemployment, as long as the working population continues to expand as rapidly as it has expanded in the recent past. However, it will be possible to reverse that trend in the next two or three years. I hope that future Adjournment debate motions will not have to include this topic.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) referred in a restrained but effective manner to the sad plight of Russian Christian dissidents, and in particular to Alexander Ogorodnikov. His contribution brought home to us that so many of the things that we take for granted in our political system are not automatically enjoyed elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) characteristically played the role that he has played with such distinction throughout the decades as champion of the hospital service, particularly the hospital service in his own area of Willesden, and referred to the proposed closure of the Neasden hospital. My experience in Shropshire of the management that has accompanied the Griffiths report is that it has not been detrimental, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have had that experience. I shall convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services the points that he has made this evening with such great effect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) talked about family courts in the context of the recent consultation document. I have noted her words that it is time for action, not words, and I shall ensure that they are conveyed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. I am sure that she will realise that this will become an extremely contentious topic. It is one of those areas of supposed non-party political controversy which has the capacity to embroil this place infinitely more effectively than some of our more conventional debates.
I was fascinated when my hon. Friend then talked about television violence. The House would probably accept the general proposition that she put forward, but when it came to identifying the particular forms of television which my hon. Friend would wish to be subject to some constraint, we would soon part company. I would certainly not accept that "EastEnders" would require any of the censorship that I thought was implicit in her comments.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), as the author of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, knows perfectly well that in some weeks or months he will leave this place, alas for ever, but, none the less, leave for posterity something by which he will he remembered. I understand that that being the case he is rather worried about the lethargy—[Interruption.] I travel with complete optimism in these matters. It is part of the psychological warfare.
If the hon. Gentleman is finding the Treasury somewhat lacking in social sensitivity in these matters, he is not alone. This is not the only area where one discovers that. However, I shall pass on all the points that he wished me to make.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I had expected a serious reply, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for me to withdraw my description of the right hon. Gentleman as a person who exercises great sensitivity when he makes such electoral predictions?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman has my unconditional acquiescence to the withdrawal of the description of me as a person of exceptional sensitivity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East talked about radiotherapy at Southend. I shall ensure that his points are understood by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services where there is a need for an early decision. I understand that he would like ministerial guidelines from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science which would cut short any protracted and misguided debate about the reorganisation of grammar schools in Southend. I am not quite so optimistic as my hon. Friend that I can get the answers he seeks because it implies a rather brisker approach to these affairs by my right hon. Friend than he would generally wish to possess. My hon. Friend is shown to be ever the most persuasive spokesman in that he asks for a mere half a day to deal with about 45 deficiencies of the European Community and the way that we have been practically stripped to our ankles of any sovereignty or self-respect. I have not been equipped with the usual Foreign Office brief, but I understand that the cases are well argued and deeply felt and go much wider than my hon. Friend thinks. I shall see that my hon. Friend's points are passed on to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary in exactly those terms and with good Christmas wishes.
The House will have listened with great interest to the plea of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for the Amerindians. I suspect that the whole question of the rain forests and the attempt to have some

policy of global ecology has caught the imagination of the west more than practically any other single topic. I shall pass on his points, as he requests.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) is concerned about the case of Miss McGoldrick, and I am sure that he is right in saying that her behaviour and conduct generally have excited great admiration in the House. I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has said that he is studying the papers with a view to the use of section 68 powers and he should shortly be making known his decision.
The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) gave a robust exposition of the difficulties of low pay. If he thinks that he can cure those difficulties by a substantial increase without raising the whole question of differentials in working class pay, he is underestimating the task that he takes on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) spoke eloquently about the Blackburn road bypass and his speech was heard by the Minister responsible.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked me to take to heart his four points. I certainly shall.

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic adjournments).

Resolved,
That this House at its rising on Friday 19th December do adjourn until Monday 12th January, and that the House shall not adjourn on Friday 19th December until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard the exchange of views earlier between my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and the Leader of the House when my hon. Friend pressed the right hon. Gentleman to tell us whether there would be a Welsh rate support grant statement tomorrow. It is my understanding that thus far the Government have not said that such a statement will be forthcoming, and the reason they have given for that is that there is congestion of parliamentary business.
I know that Welsh Members and you, Mr. Speaker, have had a long, honourable and traditionally warm relationship, and I am sure that none of us would want to prejudice that. Will you confirm that, if we do not have a Welsh rate support grant statement tomorrow, there is little that you can do other than accept points of order from Welsh hon. Members who wish to press the Government on the matter tomorrow? If that is the case, will not parliamentary business become even more congested if we do not get a statement tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker: I hope that we do not have points of order on this matter. I listened carefully to the Leader of the House and I understood him to say that this matter could properly be discussed through the usual channels. There is business not only tomorrow but on three days after that.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing order No. 113 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Orders of the Day — Pilkington Brothers plc

Mr. John Evans: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise an issue of tremendous significance and importance to people in my constituency and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and a number of other hon. Members. I regret the necessity for raising the subject, but I do so because the bid that has been made by BTR for Pilkington Brothers plc, whose headquarters are in St. Helens, is wholly unwelcome and completely rejected by almost everyone in St. Helens.
The bid is totally opposed by the company. I should like to quote briefly from the statement by the chairman of the company, because that shows the opposition of Pilkington's to the bid. Mr. Anthony Pilkington, the chairman of the company, in a recent document rebutting the offer by BTR said:
In 20 years, Pilkington has moved from fourth position in the world to undisputed leader. I would regard it as grossly inequitable if the very substantial benefits which are resulting from our successful strategy were to flow to BTR shareholders rather than to you and the other shareholders of Pilkington. I am confident you will support Pilkington and all that we represent.
It is the clear and strong advice of your Board and of its financial advisers, Schroders and Goldman Sachs, that you should reject BTR.
I need scarcely add that your directors have no intention of accepting the offer in respect of their own beneficial holdings.
The bid is also entirely unacceptable to St. Helens borough council. In a statement on local radio the other day, the chairman of the council said that the loss of local control of the company would greatly harm St. Helens. Mrs. Marie Rimmer, the leader of the council, said:
We will definitely not keep the head office base within St. Helens. That's something the council have used very seriously, it's quite prestigious to have a multi-national head office within your town. Not just for the jobs that's there, but in attracting other businesses to St. Helens.
It is also clear that the bid is entirely unwelcome to all the political parties in St. Helens. It is unwelcome to the chamber of trade, to the small business people, to those who supply Pilkington and to the shopkeepers who rely on its prosperity. It is also entirely unacceptable to the trade unions in the town and to the entire work force, white collar and blue collar, shop worker and manager.
I shall quote briefly from some of the many letters that I have received on the subject, but I hope that the House

will understand why I do not give the names and addresses of those who have written to me. I wish to protect their interests just in case the takeover bid is successful and jeopardises people's future interests. The Minister can have a copy of all the letters that I have received.
A senior manager stated:
I am a native of St. Helens and a long-serving employee of Pilkington, having experience of the Company from 'grass roots' to senior manager.
It is a sign of the company's policy that many senior managers started on the shop floor. The letter continues:
As an employee, I have seen the company grow from a relatively small, mostly United Kingdom-based operation to its current position as undisputed world-leader in the industry. This growth has been based principally on its commitment to technology, and clearly the publicly stated 'rust bucket' approach of BTR is totally incapable of maintaining that position for long—let alone permitting further growth. Low technology and Pilkington are incompatible.
An engineering manager at Pilkington wrote to me as follows:
Pilkington, who have been in the glassmaking business for 160 years, have provided employment for my family for four generations, so it is only natural for me to ask how a low tech conglomerate such as BTR can improve on Pilkington's performance … Pilkington are already the best and do not need BTR, particularly at this time when the results and prospects are already improving rapidly after a lot of hard work.
Those two letters are examples of the many that I have received from management and work force. I have also received many letters from trade unions. The district secretary of the south-west Lancashire district of the Amalgamated Engineering Union—my union—wrote as follows:
I write to express the great concern of the AEU District Committee at the prospect of the BTR takeover being successful. The numbers employed by Pilkington Bros. in the town of St. Helens has of course reduced dramatically over the last 10 years. Nevertheless, it is the view of my District Committee that the present takeover bid, if successful, would result in even greater job losses.
A resolution passed by members of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs, which represents the Pilkington work force throughout the country, states:
This ASTMS Conference of Pilkington Delegates representing 3,000 members employed by Pilkington's in the UK, having considered the bid by BTR is of the conclusion that the takeover makes no industrial sense and would not be in the long term interests of employees at Pilkingtons … We have also considered BTR's industrial record here and abroad and we do not believe that our agreements or our trade union rights would be protected under a BTR management.

Mr. John Fraser: Does my hon. Friend agree that the disgraceful treatment that BTR has meted out to the employees of Hangers, the limb fitters at Roehampton, and the way in which it has treated other companies that it has taken over, are reasons for referring the bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting forward that point of view. I hope that he will have a chance of developing it if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker. The treatment that BTR has dished out to workers in other companies that have had the misfortune to fall within its hands is motivating the minds of thousands of trade unionists who are employed by Pilkington.
In this week's special edition of the St. Helens Reporter, which speaks for the town and is read throughout the town, the editor writes:
In three short weeks, St. Helens has become the focus of national, and international, attention. Why? The £1·16 billion takeover bid of 'our' Pilks by the trans-national faceless conglomerate BTR has dominated the pages of the financial press. I say 'our' Pilks because what affects Pilks affects St. Helens. And the effect on St. Helens if the vigorously-contested bid goes through after Christmas would be nothing short of disastrous. For St. Helens, a town proudly built on glass and coal, would end up like the forgotten steel towns … a ghastly, ghost world falling apart through financial neglect. The epitome of desolation in a deprived and industrial-degraded north west.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Is not the real point—the hon. Gentleman has said that BTR has not been a successful conglomerate, but it has—that there is no industrial synergy in it taking over Pilkington, which has been highly successful on its own and has a great industrial future on its own? We need companies in industry which progress in their own sectors in their own way successfully, as Pilkington has, without them being taken over by those who want to make something different out of them. We need industrial giants to progress on their own as Pilkington has, and not financial conglomerates.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He has set out the thrust of all the letters and resolutions that I have received. He has expressed the comments which have been made to me during telephone calls and in conversations throughout the town, the thrust of which is that Pilkington must remain an independent company. It is on the record that Pilkington has been part of St. Helens since 1826, and as the company has grown, so the town has grown.
The company's long-term strategy has turned it into a world leader with the best worldwide market position of any glass company. It leads the world in glass technology and innovation and is unique among British companies in building world leadership from a United Kingdom base. It occupies that position as an independent British company that maintains its head office in St. Helens, which was rebuilt a few years ago. It is the only multinational company with its headquarters in the northwest.
Pilkington is not confined to St. Helens and it is obvious that many hon. Members are concerned about the company's future. It is growing in advanced technology and it has plants in Glasgow, north Wales and many other areas throughout the country, including Birmingham, which have pioneered developments in the glass industry. It has a manufacturing capacity in a number of western countries and its famous flat glass manufacturing plant is licensed out to no fewer than 31 manufacturers in 21 countries, including the USA and the USSR, which brings tremendously needed revenue into the company and the country.
Pilkington's commitment to research and development is massive. No less than £50 million a year is spent by the company in operating at the frontiers of glass technology in virtually every sector. That massive investment must be taken into account when consideration is given to the company's profits, which have risen to £86·9 million from £49·4 million for the six months to September 1986.
Pilkington is a profitable, high technology company, and is spending vast sums of money to remain so. It is

respected by its work force. that is one of the most important factors about the company. Of course, Pilkington is much more than than. Its involvement with the town of St. Helens is legendary, beneficial and pioneering. In 1978, with the local council, the chamber of commerce, banks and trade unions, Pilkington launched the famous Community of St. Helens Trust. Since 1979, the St. Helens trust has been responsible for the creation of about 450 businesses within the town, and more than 90 per cent. of those companies have prospered and are operating today.
Since 1979, over 5,000 new jobs have been created in St. Helens. Through the work of the trust, new businesses are being formed at the rate of one and a half per week. It is the forerunner of the enterprise agency movement. The trust is still chaired by Anthony Pilkington, the chairman of Pilkington Brothers plc, despite his many other commitments. The trust launched Rainford venture capital, which was established to provide equity investment in small companies, and it has been tremendously beneficial for many small companies within the St. Helens area. The trust also launched Pilkington Properties, to develop sites that were surplus to Pilkington's requirements and could be used for incoming small businesses. The trust launched the index scheme—a youth training scheme—long before the Manpower Services Commission talked about the two-year training programme. The index scheme advocated and put into practice a two-year training scheme for young people.
For every project that it can, Pilkington places orders within a 20-mile radius of St. Helens. Recently, Pilkington responded to an MSC approach to manage a community programme. Two weeks ago, I visited that programme. It now employ no less than 140 people on five separate schemes, all of which are beneficial to the town, particularly to the elderly.
The company has been responsible for promoting good works and employment within the community programme. But Pilkington has contributed to much more within St. Helens. We are proud of the fact that St. Helens is one of the few towns with a live theatre—the Theatre Royal. Pilkington has put a great deal of work into maintaining it. Only a few years ago, Pilkington handsomely contributed to a magnificient centre for handicapped people.
No doubt, some people will sneer, "Paternalism." Some people will say that companies should be responsible only for creating profits for shareholders. Pilkington is one of the best companies. It engages in a wealth-sharing exercise with the community which, in the first place, is responsible for creating that wealth.
The people of St. Helens wish to ask legitimate questions of BTR. Will BTR maintain the commitment to the present level of expenditure in St. Helens? Will BTR maintain the head office in St. Helens? Will BTR maintain the level of expenditure on research and development? It is hardly likely. If hon. Members examine BTR's answers to previous questions, they may judge what its leading personnel have said.
Sir Owen Green, the chairman, was reported in October 1985 as saying:
We have never seen the ethical need or the material reward for placing research and development to the forefront of our activities. Research does not seem to fit easily into the cut-and-thrust environment of industry and commerce.


Mr. Jeff Cahill, the chief executive-elect, says of BTR under his stewardship:
We'll still be known as a rust bucket company, making mature products with a mature life. There'll be no high-tech.
Will BTR maintain current levels of activity and employment throughout the Pilkington group? A most important question for BTR to answer is this: what will it do to improve Pilkington's performance if it acquires the company? The answers to those questions are of interest, not just to the people of St. Helens but to the shareholders, particularly the financial institutions in the City that hold Pilkington shares, and hold the people's livelihood in their hands. They have a question to answer: is short-term, get-rich-quick profit to be preferred to long-term stability and steady wealth creation? That will be the deciding factor. I and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South have no doubt that the estimated 10 per cent. of small shareholders from the St. Helens area will be resolute in voting for Pilkington's.
There is also a question that Sir Gordon Borrie, the Director General of Fair Trading, must answer when he considers the bid, and in any recommendation that he makes to the Secretary of State. I am puzzled by the report in The Independent on Saturday 13 December, which informs us:
Popular wisdom is that the OFT will clear the BTR offer and its recommendation will be accepted by trade minister Paul Channon.
That comment is rather odd in relation to the recent speech made by Sir Gordon Borrie in Glasgow. The Guardian of 5 December reported him as saying:
present competition law could be encouraging conglomerates and reducing the number of independent decision-making centres.
That definitely fits the present Pilkington situation. The article went on to say:
But he criticised the free-for-all view that where mergers did not affect competition everything could be left to market forces. These forces were driven by shareholders and a myriad of financial advisers and experts.
Again, that fits the Pilkington bid. The article continued:
it was extremely difficult to determine whether so 'excessively short-term a view' was being taken that the merger might be against the public interest. One way of attacking this problem, he said, would be to consider changing the burden of proof, so that companies had to demonstrate positive benefits if a merger was to be cleared.
That was an intelligent and far-sighted way of approaching our problems, with the present mania of takeover bids.
Sir Gordon must acknowledge that the takeover is not in the public interest. That is a ground for referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said in his intervention, the other ground for referral is the undoubted disastrous effect on industrial relations that would occur throughout Pilkington if the bid were successful. A submission on both those aspects will be forthcoming from St. Helens council and the Pilkington trade unions. They will meet tomorrow to make that submission. It is the intention of the council to call a meeting of all local authorities in Great Britain with Pilkington plants in their towns and cities so that they can make a similar submission to the Office of Fair Trading.
However, the main questions are for the Government, and so they should be. It is not just a matter of insider dealing, which is prevalent in so many deals. The main

questions that the Government must answer is: what sort of British industry do they want? Do they believe that the nation's industry should be based on long-term strategic planning, backed by significant capital spending on research and development, as do the German and Japanese Governments? If the answer to that question is no, that market forces, short-term financial and profit motives must prevail, and that the rusty bucket BTRs of this world must be allowed to swallow the high-technology Pilkingtons, God help manufacturing industry. It will have no real future.
However, if the answer to that question is yes, Britain's industry must be based on planning and research and development, the BTR bid for Pilkington must be stopped dead in its tracks. That is what Pilkington's board wants. That is what Pilkington's workers want. That is what local authorities, especially St. Helens, want. I suggest that that is what the majority of hon. Members want.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: If the speech of the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) were his first speech on industry, one might well have found a point that one could meet. But, as I listened to the harrowing accounts of the destruction of family businesses and the concentration of wealth, I could not help remembering that it was the Labour party which consistently, for 40 years, advocated nationalisation, which eliminated family businesses and concentrated wealth in the southern areas of this country.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has served his constituents' interests as cleverly as he might. He hopes that he can deflect the bid from BTR, but BTR has had a track record of success, which means that it has delivered a great deal of improved asset value to the owners of its shares, who will often coincide with the owners of Pilkington's shares. Those shareholders will represent many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents whose insurance policies and pension funds will be invested in the success of those institutional shareholders.
If the hon. Gentleman had really sought to achieve the purpose which I think he genuinely wants, he would have been better advised not to attack BTR, because it is a successful British company which is pursuing its success in the market place. I would have no adverse comment to make on the way in which it goes about its purpose. That is a legitimate thing to do. Rather than look to the Government—that is perhaps more instinctively in line with the hon. Gentleman's philosophy—the hon. Gentleman might have done better to approach this matter from the point of view of Pilkington's shareholders. They are the people who, on reading his speech, will have to decide whether he has deployed persuasive arguments. They are the people who will decide whether to accept the bid.

Mr. Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on what he has said in his party-political approach and on the fact that the only words that I used that could be described as an attach on BTR were "rusty bucket"? They were the words used by the chairman of the company. They were his words, not mine.

Mr. Heseltine: I understand that. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech. If it is read by the institutional shareholders to whom he is addressing his


message, I do not think that it will find empathy with the assumptions upon which they work. They will be aware that, broadly speaking, for as long as anyone can remember, the Labour party and its supporters in St. Helens have vilified Pilkington and much of what it stood for. Today, we hear a latter-day conversion—and I welcome it for that—but I am not deceived by the depth of the transformation.

Mr. Evans: That is outrageous.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman has made his speech.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heseltine: I have given way once. This is a short debate, and I wish to pursue my argument.
I have no adverse comment to make about BTR, but I think that it is wrong to approach this matter from that point of view. It is important that BTR should prove its case and that the onus of proof should be on it in making a bid of this sort. I hope that Pilkington's shareholders will carefully consider where their obligations lie and should lie.
Recently, the CBI, in calling for an industrial strategy, determined to appoint a distinguished group of CBI members to go to the City to discuss with institutional shareholders the long-term relationships of owners and managers. That is an overdue step which should be given every support. The managers, who in this context would represent the views that Pilkington's is now expressing, want to talk to the owners of Britain's institutional wealth because they increasingly understand that much of today's investment in manufacturing industry is long term and much of the costs of maintaining an industrial apparatus involve overheads which can, in the short term, be cut. But, if they are cut, there will be a price to be paid in the long term.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, North has rightly pointed out that aspects of potential economy in the short term include training and the research and investment programmes of companies, because they could all be set on one side in the pursuit of relatively short-term gains. It is even possible that shareholders can gain from an immediate return, but, in the longer term, there can be no gain for British shareholders unless the economy, and the manufacturing economy, is encouraged to invest and grow.
The issue at the forefront of the debate is whether the institutional shareholders of the country are prepared to see through some permanent commitment to the companies that they own, or whether they will take relatively short-term views within a capitalist ethos which has no longer-term accountability. I do not think that, in the end, the Government can stand aside from these matters, but I would infinitely prefer it if the shareholders recognised the responsibility themselves.
It is important to recognise that none of the equivalent capitalist economies, which we must in the end compete with or fail, would adopt so simplistic a view as that which maintains that there are no long-term commitments and that the short term is all. Germany, Japan and France have arrangements, an understanding, a community of national approach, which draw managers, shareholders and financiers into a much more coherent understanding of where their long-terms interests lie.
The only economy that would take an approach to the market similar to ours is the American one. It can do that because it operates on such a large scale. If one considers the penetration of low and medium-technology products from Japan into the United States, however, we realise that even the Americans are having to come to terms with an extremely uncomfortable penetration from a much more coherently organised capitalist economy. These are the fundamental issues that we have to address and which Pilkington summarises.
It fell to me—it was an immense privilege—to be associated for some years with the fortunes of Merseyside. It is an inescapable fact that, in that part of provincial England, the great family businesses that created its wealth have gone, not because the market alone dictated that they should, although that is partly the case, but because the tax regimes to which we subjected them made it inevitable that they would sell out.
There was no conceivable way in which family businesses could be more than one generation businesses. They had to pay captial gains tax and death duties and, in the end, they had to put their companies on the market. Local institutions or people who wanted to buy offered cash, but cash was less attractive than the tax-free roll-over provisions of the publicly quoted companies.
There is no escape from the logic of that Government interference within the marketplace. It was not just Tory intervention, but the intervention of all parties over decades. The result is an erosion of local autonomy and power which is dangerous to an economy and which has led to a concentration in the City of London and the south. That is a step better than the nationalisation of industries, but it is a step in the same direction towards central control.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) said recently in an important speeech on another industrial matter, it is by no means self-evident that the accumulation of power by publicly quoted companies has been beneficial to the country's industrial base. I respect the discipline of shareholders to look after the interests of their investors on whom their future must depend, but I ask them to remember that this company, by any logical standard, has tried to achieve what has been asked of it. It has invested. It has dominated the technology of its industry. It has become a world leader. It has faced recession and, in doing so, it has run down its work force—but with compassion. It has, as far as possible, run down its work force with voluntary arrangements and allowed its people to go at as acceptable a pace as was possible.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, North referred to paternalism. I am a paternalist. I believe that those who have private privilege and power should exercise the responsibilities that go with that privilege. If Pilkington had been copied on a larger scale, the effects of the recession on our industrial economy would have been less harmful.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the enterprise trust. It was one of the first examples of which I am aware—pioneered by Bill Humphries of Pilkington—where capitalist Britain worked in partnership with a Labour local authority to stimulate a climate in which small companies began to appear and job creation was a prime concern in a free enterprise environment. This Government dramatically increased the incentives for that sort of trust, but Pilkington pioneeered that spirit. That


must be one of the finest examples of what a locally based and controlled company should try to do to win the consent of the local people for the ethos of the capitalist system.
When those shareholders come to consider where their votes should be cast, I ask them not only to consider the short-term view but to look to the long-term interests of

the company. They have a responsibility, as we all do, for the success of our manufacturing bases. There will be a message and a consequence if they simply think that they can sell today in the hope that somebody else will pick up the pieces tomorrow.
It falls to hon. Members to argue the ethos of capitalism. It is a great deal easier to argue for capitalism that patently cares, and Pilkington beyond peradventure is just such a company.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I found it sad that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) began his remarks in support of the company that has done so much for the town which I have the privilege to represent with an attack on my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) and me. On numerous occasions we have supported the employees, trade unions and company through oral and written questions, speeches and comments.
The company is at the heart of St. Helens and it is deplorable that a Member of Parliament who represents a lusher pasture should begin his remarks in defence of the lifeblood of our town with an almost personal attack on its representatives. When the right hon. Gentleman reads his speech tomorrow, I hope that he will realise that his initial remarks could be interpreted in that way.
If the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to attack my hon. Friend or me, we shall be delighted to hear his retractions and clarification; but if such clarification cannot be given, we must take the remarks as we heard them. Tonight I do not wish to make petty party political points. I have a genuine issue at heart.
Those who have shares in a large company have a responsibility, not only to the company, but to the people who produce the wealth that lies behind the value of the shares. The wealth of Pilkington has been a combination of both capital and labour. Labour includes the ingenuity, skill, brilliance, ideas and development over many years of those who work in the company. Most of them are not shareholders. Labour includes the efforts of those who work on the shop floor—the fitters, joiners, blowers and skilled craftsmen. The skill of such men throughout the country in the optical industry makes this product a world leader. It is a combination of their efforts, brains, ideas and lives that creates the background to the work.
I accept that if a business is to grow it needs capital and over the years there has been an input of capital. Hence we have the creation of shareholders within the company. Without that skill, effort, brilliance and technical know-how, the company would never have grown to its present size. In saying that, I pay tribute to every member of the staff, whether the managing director or the youngest recruit and apprentice. Every person plays a part in the company's development.
The pension fund managers and investment houses which own the bulk of the shares should address one simple question. In holding the shares that are often the product of the purchasing power of the pension contributions from ordinary working people, do they have a responsibility to those who made the wealth that gives value to their pension funds? The answer must of course be yes. For too long—I do not seek to be cruel in what I say—the investment managers have often considered a share as a means of making a profit, or a quick buck on a turnover through the shifting of millions of shares. We saw that happen in the Guinness bid and in numerous takeover bids that have occurred during the past few years. Ultimately the decisions of the pension fund managers determine the outcome of a bid and very often that decision has rested on what is most profitable to the pension fund.
That is the sad disease that has begun to destroy the American stock markets where there has been a growth in

green mail and the emergence of people like Boesky who wheel and deal and make millions without lifting a hand to create a manufactured product.
If we develop a society in which billions of pounds can change hands at a stroke of a pen, we will create a society that will destroy the base of that society's wealth—the ability of men to create a product that is wanted elsewhere, that can be sold to create wealth, investment, expansion and new work. The bid from BTR is a classic example of the kind of bids that we witnessed in the latter part of the 1960s and in the early part of the 1970s when companies were taken over, broken up, their assets stripped, parts sold and ideas destroyed so that those who struck to create the conglomerate could repay the money that they borrowed to pay for the deal.
Pilkington would be destroyed if it was broken up. As a result of BTR's bid, will we once again witness the destruction of a major industry? We have seen that happen many times already. I do not intend to attack BTR tonight because I do not think that that is a worthwhile exercise and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North has covered much of that ground. I do not want to delay the House by repeating what he said. However, I absolutely support and endorse everything that he said.
The point that I wish to make above all others tonight is that the Government have a duty and responsibility in these matters, just as the Director General of Fair Trading has a responsibility. The time has come when the Government must accept some responsibility in the corporate market structure. They must stop the nation following the same road taken in the United States where mega-bid follows mega-bid, where groups of companies are taken over simply to be stripped out, broken up and sold off so that the creditor can make a few hundred million dollars here and a few hundred million dollars there by selling the bits that he does not want. He can keep the parts that he wants and can grow. Who are the winners in that game? Are they the employees or the nation involved? The American experience shows that the employees and the nation lose out and that the winners are the arbitrageurs—or whatever they are called today—who are in it to make a buck for themselves.
Our society is bigger than that and must not become a society in which jobs can fall at the whim of an investment manager like the leaves from a tree in autumn so that the investment manager—whether for an insurance company, a pension fund or simply a Boesky-like character—can make a fast pound in profit. We have a greater responsibility than that in the organisation of our corporate structures. I hope that tonight the Minister will give us an assurance, not just for this bid, but for other bids that are mooted, that we will begin to see the Government take on board some responsibility for the organisation of the markets that effect our corporate structures. With Government comes responsibility. The Government fought shy of taking on board the responsibility for organising the market place in the investor protection legislation recently because it took only a few days post the big bang for us to begin to see that the Chinese walls were so paper thin that they had no meaning.
Let the Government on this occasion take a principled stand and say that there is no industrial logic in what is being done and that there is no benefit to the towns and cities throughout this land which have Pilkington industries in them and there is no industrial benefit to the


glass industry from the proposed takeover bid. Because there is no industrial benefit or logic, the Government have a responsibility to say no. I suggest to the Minister that, if no is what the Government say on this occasion, it may bring just a little bit of responsibility to the corporate barons within the City. As the right hon. Member for Henley suggested, it may make those who hold the bulk of shares in British industry—the investment managers of the major institutions and banks—realise that they have a responsibility as shareholders to the people who work in those industries and those upon whose backs, ideas and dreams they are making their wealth. Let us see whether the Government have the courage on this occasion to try to bring some discipline to the market.

Sir Anthony Meyer: The Floor of the House, the Dee and the Mersey divide me from the hon. Members for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) and for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). However, I am glad from north Wales to support the plea for Pilkington which they have both made. I do so from a point of view very close to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) whose powerful intervention in the debate I very much welcome.
BTR'S hostile bid for Pilkington is bad news for all who work for Pilkington, for those areas where Pilkington plants are situated and for Britain's industrial future. Pilkington has an admirable reputation as an industrial leader and employer. It is the world's leading glass company, and it got to be so by management every bit as shrewd as and a great deal more far-seeing than anything that the whizz kids of BTR could produce and by bold policies for researching and developing new products with a lead time far longer than BTR with its need for demonstrable short-term profits could possibly provide.

Mr. Barry Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I visited a Pilkington factory in my constituency at Queensferry this morning? I met leaders of the work force and the management. They left me in no doubt as to their dismay at developments such as the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) is mentioning. I received a petition, which I was asked to deliver to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, which shows the united opposition of the work force at Queensferry to BTR's proposition.

Sir Anthony Meyer: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the importance of Pilkington to Clwyd and the defects of BTR, as we saw all too clearly at Wrexham.
Pilkington is probably the best employer in my constituency. Its contribution to the local community is important, as it has been in every area where it operates. It pays good wages and offers good conditions of work. Above all—and this is what matters most to me—it offers precious opportunities to the really ambitious school leavers in my area, and, heaven knows, there are all too few such opportunities.
In the best sense of the word, Pilkington is paternalistic. That word is anathema to some parts of the City of London, despite the fact that paternalism has been a notable ingredient in Japan's industrial success story. Paternalism has been an important element in Pilkington's success. Its success makes it attractive to acquisitive

operators like BTR, which, ironically, can use paternalism as a pretext for its bid, on the ground that brisker and more impersonal management would create even bigger profits.
BTR's record in north Wales has been lamentable. It took over Dunlop in Wrexham, which had received substantial local authority and Government help, stripped it and then shut it down. BTR then refused to hold any discussions with the local authority on replacement jobs. I wonder how BTR has the nerve to show its face in north Wales. North Wales wants to keep its "Pilks"; it does not want BTR.
What is to be done? There is something worrying about the way in which BTR has set about acquiring Pilkington shares and there is something distinctly suspicious about their sudden rise in value, which might tempt some shortsighted shareholders to try to make a quick buck. If BTR has overstepped the mark in any way—I am not saying that it has—I look to my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to be especially zealous in using such powers as he has.
However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley said, there is a much wider question than whether the rules governing takeovers have been strictly complied with. The BTR bid raises the question of Britain's industrial future and puts the Government's policy towards industry under a searching light. It throws into high relief the fact that the requirements of industry and of finance are not complementary, as they should be and as Conservatives would like them to be. In some respects they are sharply divergent.
The City and the financial institutions perform a great service to this country. Without their earnings, Britain would be unable to pay its way in the world. However, they require a fairly quick return on the capital that they are so skilled at raising. Industry—in particular, technologically advanced industry—has to make a profit, too. We should never lose sight of that fact, but in some of its operations it needs to work on a very much longer time scale than is acceptable to the financial institutions.
If industry is to stay out in front, as Pilkington has done, it has to commit itself to some operations which may yield no return, or a very small return, for several years. This, plus the need for far greater industrial co-operation on a European scale, is the central question governing the continued survival of Britain as an industrial nation.
I do not expect my hon. and learned Friend to go so far as some of us would like him to go and say that the state ought to play a more active role in sponsoring carefully selected industrial projects, but the problem will not be solved by market forces alone, if only because the market itself is so imperfect. I am not referring to the much greater help that so many of our competitors give to their industries. That is a major factor, but it is a subject for another speech. I am referring to the inbuilt bias against industrial innovation and enterprise arising out of the way in which our capital markets and tax system operate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley's observations on that point were extremely shrewd. Ministers cannot just put it on one side; they will have to do something if British industry is not to be sacrificed to the short-term requirements of the City of London. If it cannot modify its free market philosophy, at the very least


it needs to do a great deal more to make sure that it is a free market and not just a well guarded playpen for financiers.
While Ministers are thinking about this, my hon. and learned Friend must use such limited powers as he possesses to prevent this takeover. He must make it plain that BTR's bid is as unwelcome to his Department as it is to Pilkington and that, if it looked like succeeding, he would use such weapons as he possesses to persuade the shareholders not to fall for the offer. The fox has got into the hen yard where our prize hens have been laying so well. It will gobble up the few and wantonly slaughter the rest. This is the repulsive face of capitalism, and it must be stopped now.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It may be helpful to point out that the Opposition Front Bench Member will seek to rise at 11.10 pm and the debate must end at 11.32 pm. If hon. Members would confine themselves to five minutes each, it would be helpful.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), who is a good friend of mine, managed to initiate this debate. I say to the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) that no one could defend the interests of the people of St. Helens better than my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North. He knows a little more about the needs of the employees at Pilkington than the right hon. Member for Henley. I noticed the one element that was missing from the speech of the right hon. Member for Henley was the employees of Pilkington. He talked about the shareholders. In St. Helens, of course, people talk about nothing else but the ethos of capitalism. But they understand that capitalism might cost them their jobs and the prosperity of St. Helens.
We are not just talking about a takeover bid. We are talking about profits, asset stripping and predators. There is no greater predator in the market than BTR, nor is there a company with a worse industrial relations record. We do not need to go very far—it is much nearer to the constituency of the right hon. Member for Henley than St. Helens—down the road to see what is happening at J. E. Hanger. Where people have been put out of work. But, if we wish to go much further than that, we can look at South Africa where BTR have been paying disgraceful starvation wages to the workers. No wonder that the people and the employees of St. Helens are fearful of what may happen.
I am the president of ASTMS, which has 3,000 members in Pilkington, so I have a right to speak on this. We are talking about two quite different companies. The idea of a merger between them makes no industrial sense whatsoever. Pilkington is the world's leading producer of flat glass. We should be proud of that and seek to sustain it rather than let a rust bucket company, as my hon. Friend said, in low technology products—in engineering and rubber—take over or make a bid for one of the world's leaders. Not only St. Helens council is worried; West Lancashire district council is also concerned because the research and development centre is at Lathom.
It is right to have this debate because Pilkington is being judged against the ethos of this Government. In other words, it is being judged as a market force that looks for

short-term profits rather than at the long-term interests of the nation. That is the tragedy that is befalling us far too often.
A company such as Pilkington must be prepared to put money into a long-term investment in a product that is continually changing and must be prepared to look for new ideas all the time in order to remain the world leader.
What is Pilkington's record? On research and development alone it spends £50 million each year and 60 per cent. of that is spent in the United Kingdom. I go further: it invests more than £200 million each year in new manufacturing and processing plant. That is how it has been able to maintain its place as world leader.
The company looks not at short-term investments but at investments for seven or 10 years ahead. That is the kind of market that the company is in. Glass is not just plain glass these days; it is a very sophisticated product. It needs long-term strategic planning on an international scale. Pilkington's success in float glass means that it has £400 million a year coming in in licensing fees because the company licenses all over the world. That is why the company is important. It has grown from the largest glass manufacturer in the United Kingdom to the largest glass manufacturer in the world.
Let me give one or two other figures about Pilkington. It provides glass for 7 million cars annually. It also provides the windscreens for Concorde. In an even more difficult market it provides the windscreens for Boeing 747s, 757s, and 767s. In optical glass it is ahead of all its competitors. There has been a changeover from optical glass in lenses to the plastic glass, as the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) knows full well from the factory in his constituency. It is one of the world's largest manufacturers and supplies one in five of all lenses purchased in the western world. In insulation products it is also ahead of the field. In medical lasers—

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: What constituency does the hon. Gentleman speak for?

Mr. Hoyle: I speak for many constituencies, because I speak for 3,000 union members.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I have two Pilkington companies in my constituency.

Mr. Hoyle: Of course, and the hon. Gentleman is proud of them. I shall finish because I want to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I always listen to him with great interest.
It would be a tragedy if an international firm were taken over by one with a short-term future. The Government have a duty to ensure that that does not happen, and the bid must be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: This is an important debate. It is a pity that it is so short, but we all understand why that has to be.
BTR is not the villain of the piece. It has done tremendous things in taking over many lame ducks and stripping out, not just for financial gain alone, many failing companies and making them successful. It is the successful companies that preserve jobs, so it is no good any of us thinking that BTR is just a financial stripper. Sir Owen Green has done a lot of great good for British industry.
The trouble is that in this case we are not talking about a lame duck. Pilkington is not a lame duck and it does not need to be broken up; it needs a continuing build-up. As the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) rightly said, Pilkington's industrial processes are long term; and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) observed, unless Britain's bankers and investors are willing to look to the long term, we shall have no industrial processes left.
We have something to learn from the Germans and the Japanese. German and Japanese bankers and investors are willing to take a long-term view about investing in their industries. Too many investors in Britain look upon investment as a short-term matter, but industrial growth is not short-term. Pilkington does not need charity. It is a highly successful company which has done great things for the glass industry and for float glass. The company is a great innovator and it must not be broken up. Indeed, it needs to be expanded. It is more like a swan than a lame duck.
The Minister must recognise that this may be a watershed for Britain. Many companies, some of them family companies, have sat back and said, "We are okay as we are", but that is not the case with Pilkington. Because of the size of the company the Minister has the power to ask for a pause for breath. This is the time to look at a company that has done well by Britain and by its employees and shareholders, and to ask Britain's investors: what does Britain need most? I was an investment manager and I know something of these matters.
We cannot depend only upon the service industries. We must plan now for what we will have left when the oil has gone; and we will need our manufacturing companies. A company which deserves well of its people, the nation and the Government is Pilkington. I urge the Minister not to use his power to thwart BTR in its normal process, but to say to all inventive and innovative companies that they will not suffer because they are innovative and have invested money. The Government should tell such companies that they will be not protected but supported, because it is support that manufacturing industry needs. Pilkington has a right to expect that from the nation and from the Government.

Mr. William Powell: Two years ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) opened a small, modern but significant plant for Pilkington in the town of Corby. It is already making a significant contribution to the company as a whole and to the town, which is rapidly becoming a town with one of the most buoyant local economies in the whole of western Europe.
The Government should pay close attention to the case advanced by hon. Members, especially by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). I should like to underline one point with all the force that I can command, because it is fundamental to the future of Britain—the necessity to preserve local influence, power and decision-making. If ever an industrial issue encapsulated that necessity, it is this bid. Although Pilkington has a significant and growing plant in my constituency, in the world the company is synonymous

with St. Helens. The fundamental decisions of the company are made in St. Helens. As has been said, it is the only multinational company based in this country which has its headquarters in the north-west of England. One of the worst features of the structure of industry in this country is the perception that millions of people have that decisions affecting their future are taken in places far from where they live and work and where wealth is created. People living in the north-east and the north-west feel that. Sooner or later we will have to face what is involved and take decisions to reverse that process.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley that nationalisation has destroyed local decision making and local influences. Our tax structure has done the same. We cannot possibly turn the corner unless we address both issues. I have no doubt that if this bid succeeds, decisions fundamental to Pilkington, to St. Helens and to the north-west will no longer be taken there as they have been for a century and a half. That would be one of the most regrettable things that could happen to the industrial structure of this country. With all the force that I can muster, I warn the House that this process, which has been going on year after year since the second world war, has to stop and be reversed. Here is as good a place as any to fight that battle.

Mr. Robin Cook: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) on having obtained this debate and having given the House the opportunity to debate this important matter. Pilkington is a major industrial group of great significance. Despite the contractions of recent years, it is still a large employer situated in an area of low employment. It is a major exporter. It has also, to its credit, developed high technology very rapidly. It is a rare illustration of a company which can develop a new process and adapt it to successful production.
Too often in this country we have seen companies which are capable of producing a new process but incapable of successfully managing the transformation of that new process into successful production. Pilkington has mastered that. It is a British success and it is right that we should debate its future tonight.
It is also appropriate that we should open the last Consolidated Fund Bill debate of 1986 with a case which illustrates one of the major economic phenomena of 1986—the extraordinary, enormous pace of takeovers in the City.
The House will recall that, when we debated this matter a fortnight ago, I drew attention to the fact that this year the sums staked in takeover bids are five or six times the total volume of takeover bids last year, which was itself a record year. The Minister will be aware, because he and I had an opportunity on Sunday to debate the matter in rather exhaustive technical detail, that one consequence of these takeover bids has been the opportunity for insider dealing. That is relevant to tonight's debate, because the share price of Pilkington went up by 73p in the six weeks before BTR announced its bid. In fairness to BTR, let it be said that it made it clear that it was not buying during that period.
One of the matters I raised with the Minister was that we are aware from the public record that the stock exchange was investigating share dealings in Pilkingtons during that period. One of the questions we should address


to the Minister is whether any reference has been made by the stock exchange council to the Department of Trade and Industry about any suspect dealing during that period in Pilkington shares. There is also a wide economic issue at stake in these takeover bids, which is also illustrated in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) quite correctly touched on that. The pressure of those takeover bids creates a short-term time perspective when an industrial company needs a long-term horizon for its investment decisions.
I listened with great interest to the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), and I have some sympathy for his point that the shareholders in Pilkington should reflect on the issues at stake and should stick with Pilkington. However, the decisions taken in the City of London during the past decade illustrate an increasingly rapid turnover in portfolio by the financial institutions as, increasingly, they take short-term rather than long-term decisions. With one or two honourable exceptions, such as Pearl Assurance, few of those major financial institutions have shown a significant commitment to sticking with management through takeover bids rather than accepting the short-term cash and running.
A critical tension between the short-term and the long-term perspectives, which is illustrated by the case of Pilkington, is the amount put into research and development. Research and development investment is long-term investment at the expense of short-term profits. If a company invests heavily in research and development, the unavoidable consequence is that its short-term profits will be cut. If that happens, the short-term share price on the market may be depressed. If that happens, the company may become vulnerable to those in the market who may be inclined to value it by its total assets rather than by its total share price. That puts some companies at risk.
I concede that where those companies are run by inefficient managment and where they have developed into conglomerates which should be reassessed, reviewed and rejigged into different component parts, a takeover bid may have a healthy and constructive part to play. But does anyone in this Chamber argue that that is the case with Pilkington? Does anyone argue that Pilkington has an inefficient management or has grown beyond its core business? Moreover, if those were faults in Pilkington, what does BTR have to offer Pilkington in better management of the glass business?
The right hon. Member for Henley cautioned us against being critical of BTR, so I shall try to be as gentle with it as I can. I recognise that, in the terms of the City of London, BTR has been an extremely successful company. Its share price has increased rapidly. But plainly the company's growth has been based on buying other companies. Like the Hanson Group, it has been a hoover company, swallowing others in its path. As a result, BTR has a track record, and the right hon. Member for Henley cannot object to our referring to that track record.
Two clear features should worry us. One is what can only be described as the company's robust attitude towards industrial relations, illustrated by its attitude to J.E. Hanger, which was debated in the House last month. The bid for Pilkington is a bid against the hostility of the united work force and management of Pilkington. What is there in the track record of BTR that would encourage us to believe that it has the diplomatic skills, finesse and

delicacy to overcome that hostility of work force and management and to win their support and co-operation, without which the company cannot succeed?
The other aspect of the track record that should worry us is the fact that BTR has been only too willing to divest technology if it can get a decent price for it. One of the first things that BTR did when it purchased Dunlop was to sell to Goodyear Dunlop's experimental centre on the computerisation of tyre production. The computer technology being developed by Dunlop is no longer being developed in Britain. It is being developed in Ohio by a rival company, which will use the breakthroughs pioneered in Britain against British production. That is BTR's track record. Who can be confident that, if it acquires Pilkington, it will not adopt a similar attitude towards Pilkington's unique technology, for which many people would be prepared to pay?
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North referred to the extremely interesting speech of Sir Gordon Borrie the other week, during which he said that referrals to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should be based no longer only on whether the merger is against the public interest. He advanced the case that they should be argued on the basis that those who propose the merger should have the onus of proving that the merger is in the public interest.
I find it extremely difficult to foresee what argument could be lodged to show that a BTR merger with Pilkington would be in the public interest. We do not have such a state of law that would put the onus on the proposer, but referrals on the basis that mergers would be against the public interest have proved extremely flexible. Only the other week the Minister referred the Gulf Resources bid for IC Gas for consideration by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That was considered a somewhat surprising decision in the market but I welcomed it. The move was to be financed by a leverage bid and it was one which should have been referred to the commission.
If the Minister believes that that bid was a proper one for referral, how much more so is the BTR bid, which will affect a major British industry involving a unique British technology? How much more strong is the case for referring the BTR bid to the commission? Pilkington is a major British success story, and let the word go out from the House that we should leave well alone and that Pilkington should be left to get on with making a success of its own business.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Howard): I join the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in congratulating the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) on his good fortune in securing the debate. I congratulate him especially on securing the first debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, on what will be a long night. I speak as someone who has the privilege of replying to the eighth debate of the night as well as this one.
I have listened with great interest to the points which have been raised by hon. Members on the takeover proposal made by BTR for Pilkington. No one could be in any doubt about the force of the views which have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, who have spoken on the basis of their constituency interests and knowledge. If I may say so, my right hon.


Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) made a speech of characteristic eloquence. I shall bear all the arguments in mind, as will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he comes to consider the advice which the Director General of Fair Trading will be submitting to him on the proposal, which will be on whether it should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for further investigation.
I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that I cannot comment further on the merits or otherwise of this proposal while my right hon. Friend is awaiting that independent advice. I have noted also the more general points which hon. Members have made and can assure them that we shall give them full consideration in the context of our review of law and policy on mergers and restrictive trade practices.
I use this opportunity to remind the House of our current policy towards mergers and the procedures which are in place for scrutinising them, and to outline some of the issues which we are considering in the context of the mergers part of the review.
We have what is now a well-established system for examining mergers and merger proposals. It involves a three-tier procedure in which the participants are the Director General of Fair Trading, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, in certain cases, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
The first stage through which a qualifying merger proposal passes—the BTR-Pilkington proposal is at this stage—is that of a preliminary examination by the Office of Fair Trading. The director general examines all aspects of the proposal which might have a bearing on the public interest before making a recommendation to my right hon. Friend about a reference. My right hon. Friend is not bound to act on the director general's advice, but he has the role of investigating qualifying mergers and his advice naturally carries a great deal of weight. His advice has not been followed in only nine cases out of about 1,500 since the Government came to office in 1979.
Those mergers which, in my right hon. Friend's view, raise public interest questions which require further consideration before a decision can be taken on whether they should be allowed to proceed, are referred to the commission for further investigation, and my right hon. Friend—I must emphasise this—has no powers under the Fair Trading Act 1973 to prevent a merger unless it is referred to the commission and it finds that it would be against the public interest.
Only a small minority of mergers are referred to the commission, and this has been the position under successive Governments since the Fair Trading Act 1973 procedures were introduced. The Act itself—by laying down assets and market share tests that have to be satisfied before a merger is considered—recognises that intervention in very small mergers that would not have a significant effect on the market cannot be justified. Of those mergers which do qualify, only between 2 per cent. and 5 per cent. are referred to the commission each year.
In our view, this is justified by two considerations. The first is our belief that shareholders are those in the best position to take decisions about the future strategy and management of companies. It is only when a merger raises particular public interest concerns that we consider an in-depth investigation by an independent authority to be

justified. The second is the expense to the taxpayer and to the companies of a reference, and the uncertainty for employees and the market which is unavoidably prolonged. A reference should not be taken lightly; and we do not take it lightly.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Obviously, I accept all that my hon. and learned Friend has said. The interventions of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, or those who held the office before him, have usually been on the side of banks. The only real mergers that were stopped and that did not follow the advice of the OFT were those involving banks, where competition abounds. I hope that, if the Government are willing to support banks against competition, they might, at least on this occasion, support a great industry against a predator, or will they support only banks?

Mr. Howard: I am afraid that the premise on which my hon. Friend based his question is entirely inaccurate. It is very far from the case that the only mergers that have been stopped or the only mergers that have been referred, even the big ones, have involved banks. One that comes very quickly to mind is the proposed merger between GEC and Plessey, which was referred to the commission and which was not allowed to proceed. It was not a merger related to banks.
In deciding whether a merger should be referred to the commission, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State looks particularly at the effects that it could have on competition. That is justified in our view because it coincides with the emphasis in the Fair Trading Act, where merger control powers are limked to powers to control monopolies. It also contributes to our broader objective of promoting competition within the economy more generally, since in our view competition is the most effective way of protecting consumer choice and of ensuring that the customer—whether industry or the man in the street—gets value for money.
There has been some criticism of this policy of making references primarily on competition grounds, a policy that was anounced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in July 1984, when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. But sometimes these criticisms are made under misapprehensions about what that policy actually involves. Some have claimed that the policy does not attach enough importance to the international dimension of mergers, the possible benefits of a merger to the nation's economy which may derive from economies of scale, and the advantages of size when competing in world markets. But the policy does specifically allow us to take into account this type of consideration. My right hon. Friend specifically said in July 1984:
In evaluating the competitive situation in individual cases, I shall have regard to the international context: to the extent of competition in the market from non-United Kingdom sources and the competitive position of United Kingdom companies in overseas markets".
Some have claimed that the policy is too narrow and restrictive, leaving too little leeway to refer mergers which may give rise to concerns on grounds other than competition. But we have never said that references would be made exclusively on competition grounds. There have been a number of cases since July 1984 in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has referred mergers on grounds other than competition. They, doo, to not refer


only to banks. Examples are the bids by Elders for Allied Lyons and by Gulf Resources for Imperial Continental Gas, where issues relating to the financing of the proposals led to the references, and those by Hillsdown and Ferruzzi for S. A. and W. Berisford, where my right hon. Friend had in mind the special character of the sugar market and British Sugar's important place in it. We recognise—

Sir Adam Butler: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Howard: I have little time left.
We recognise, however, that the business environment is changing. It is right that we should constantly reevaluate our policies to ensure that they remain suited to changing conditions. It was for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in June 1986 that we would be undertaking a review of both law and policy on mergers and restrictive trade practices.
Many of the suggestions for change that have been put forward by those contributing to the review could be implemented only with legislative change. The review— importantly—is considering the need for changes that go beyond the immediate, topical concerns which many hon. Members have raised. There have been several important developments since our mergers procedure and institutions were established by the Fair Trading Act in 1973. The nation's economy has become more exposed to international competition from both within and beyond Europe. We are now members of the European Community, which has its own structure of competition law, directly applicable in the United Kingdom. We have seen considerable changes in economic thinking, which may have an impact on the way in which we assess mergers. Our current policy is, in my view, flexible enough to accommodate such changes in thinking. But that should not deflect us from our duty, periodically, to take stock and to assess whether our policies and procedures are maximising their contribution towards our objective of ensuring a vigorous, flexible and competitive economy.
The hon. Member for Livingston asked a specific question about information from the stock exchange about the increase in the Pilkington share price. We have not received the result of any such investigation by the stock exchange. If and when we do, we shall investigate it in the same way as we have been investigating other alleged cases of insider dealing.
Although I have not—for reasons that I explained earlier—been able to discuss the merits or elements of the merger proposal that is the subject of the motion. I hope that I shall have succeeded in convincing hon. Members of the careful scrutiny which the Director General of Fair Trading and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State accord each individual case. I also hope that I shall have conveyed to the House some of the variety and complexity of the issues with which we are dealing in the review.

Orders of the Day — North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the subject of defence and the future of NATO. I can think of no more important subject to take up the next hour and a half in the House. I am pleased that we have with us the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), because I shall raise the differences in outlook between the political parties on the important topic of our approach to NATO and defence policy.
I should like to look backwards before I look to the future. I can remember back in 1958, as a national service man, taking part in the 10th anniversary parade of NATO at Mainz in West Germany. As a light infantryman, I can remember having to hold back before we marched off because the French regiment in front of us went at a much slower pace than we did. But the important point about that parade was the fact that a commitment was being shown by Western Governments to the concept of NATO, an Alliance which now consists of 16 sovereign Western countries, and which was formed in 1949 to counter the aggressive behaviour of the Soviet Union. During the second world war, it had annexed parts of Finland and the Baltic states and later, by the end of 1947, the rest of Rumania, Poland, Bulgaria and Hungary. Shortly afterwards, in 1948, following a coup d'état, Czechoslovakia also became part of that regime, or sphere of influence. Finally, the siege of west Berlin in May 1949 led to the necessary formation of the NATO Alliance.
As everyone in the House, and, I am sure, in the country, knows, the Alliance is a defensive alliance. An armed attack on one or more of the countries in either Europe or America is considered by the Alliance to be an attack against all. Therefore, NATO would be able to exercise the collective defence that would be recognised under article 51 of the United Nations charter.
It is well known that NATO has preserved peace in Europe for almost 40 years. When one considers the death and destruction that occurred during the two world wars—as an East Anglian Member, I remind the House of the many people in East Anglia and Norwich who gave their lives during those wars—it is important to remember that the NATO Alliance has preserved peace in Europe during that period.
For the future and for peace, security and freedom, it is vital that NATO preserves sufficient forces to maintain the equilibrium in Europe and the world to preserve a credible deterrent. It is vital that nothing should happen to weaken the NATO Alliance. The Alliance has experienced crises since 1949 and recently there have been more serious and pronounced strains. Recent events and political debate have increased the risk—however remote it may be—that the United States may slide into a period of isolationism. We have known of this before in the world's history. There is a danger also that some in Europe may seek accommodation with the other superpower. Those dangers may seem remote at the moment, but they are real.
When looking to the Alliance's future, we must ensure that we do not weaken in any way. In particular, there is a danger that the twin aims of the Alliance—deterrence and negotiation—may be lost in the kind of emotive


debate that often surrounds the subject of defence. I cannot do better than quote a short extract from an article in The Times in November 1984 by Roger Scruton, who said:
Anyone who studies the history of arms control negotiations with the Soviet Union is likely to be struck by a sense of unreality. From the first days it has been Soviet policy to make agreements unverifiable, and to break them with impunity; to vilify the West for the deployment of every new weapon, while serenely deploying the same weapon itself; to sign international conventions which tie our hands, while proceeding to ignore those conventions when interest requires, and to encourage vociferous and independent 'peace movements' in the West, while ruthlessly liqidating them at home.
These vociferous peace movements, of course, must include the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. As has been demonstrated, it has an influence on thinking in the Labour party, particularly recent thinking. Indeed, within the last 24 hours, the recent leader of the CND, Joan Ruddock, has been adopted as the prospective Labour parliamentary candidate for the constituency of Deptford. Doubtless that is part of the trend to which I am referring. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has an influence not only on Labour party thinking but on Liberal party thinking.
What is more, CND has sought, particularly in East Anglia, to foster the kind of anti-Americanism which weakens the NATO Alliance. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that it has had remarkably little effect, because the relationship between the people of East Anglia and the United States forces at Lakenheath and elsewhere in the region have been good and have remained good, despite the peace movements' efforts to push us in another direction.
As one who is interested in education, I point out that the CND has sought to influence our young people to whom, perhaps, because of their age, NATO's objectives seem irrelevant. In an article in the current edition of the "NATO Review", Jan Reinfenberg, the Brussels-based correspondent of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, states:
To a large extent, these objectives"—
the objectives of NATO—
have become somewhat irrelevant to a young European generation which has grown up under the protection of NATO and whose prospects for self-fulfilment would be inconceivable without the success of the Western Alliance. Moreover, that generation is often exposed to the influence of educators who, in a grotesque distortion of the facts, nowadays perceive an assertive American policy as posing a greater threat to peace than the behaviour of the Soviet Union, who equate Soviet aggression in Afghanistan with Washington's approach in Central America, and who credit Moscow with far more readiness for arms reductions than the United States.
It is worth stating in passing that we need to be aware of the continuing threat posed by so-called peace studies in schools up and down the country. The problem has been amply described by Baroness Cox and Roger Scruton in an excellent pamphlet. I do not have time to develop the theme today, but I have had complaints from parents in my constituency of this kind of miseducation in schools. The kind of syllabus involved shows a lack of academic rigour and such studies are unworthy of inclusion in our education system. I hope that that theme will be taken up again later as it is a serious matter.
The type of campaign promoted by CND should not be part of the education of young people in our schools. The same problem has occurred in the universities, leading to the declaration in 1983 by the Academic Council for Peace and Freedom, a large group of distinguished academics who were extremely concerned about the effect on young people of the propaganda put out by movements such as CND. We must not lose sight of the need for vigilance in countering those influences on our young people.
A distinction should be drawn between the activities of organisations such as CND and the longer tradition of pacifism. Although I am not a pacifist and do not hold pacifist views, it is important to note that CND is basically a political campaign, continually shifting its ground, first talking about a nuclear freeze, then about unilateral disarmament, then about the star wars strategic defence initiative, whereas the pacifist tradition is quite different. It is important to distinguish between the two.
The dangers to the Alliance have been heightened by the loss of consensus between the major parties in this country. I should like to quote an interesting extract from The Daily Telegraph some time ago. It reads:
But no one in the Atlantic Alliance now doubts that the effective superiority of the Warsaw Powers in conventional military strength in Europe rules out a purely conventional defence of Western Europe against an all-out conventional attack by the Warsaw powers … Because NATO strategy has always been founded on the nuclear deterrent against a major Soviet attack, Western Europe has known total peace".
That quotation may ring a bell with those who have been studying recent changes in Labour party policy, but the House may be astonished to discover that the quotation was taken from a speech by the then Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), speaking in the House on 4 March 1970. He went on to say that any strategy more reliant on conventional weapons
could not be carried out unless Britain reintroduced conscription."—[Official Report, 4 March 1970; Vol. 797, c. 423.]
In the light of recent reports, it may surprise hon. Members to know that in 1970 one of the present chief Opposition spokesmen on these matters was speaking in those terms. It is good to see that he referred also to conscription as many Conservatives have some sympathy with the idea of reintroducing voluntary national service. I have spoken in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) in a debate on that subject. I also support my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer), who I am glad to see here supporting the debate, and for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who have proposed a volunteer force to strengthen our defence effort.
Since the right hon. Member for Leeds, East made the speech to which I have referred, there has been a drift to the Left in the Labour party. Perhaps it is the result of public pressure, but it might be the result of pressure from CND or the influence of Soviet propaganda. It has succumbed completely to the unilateralist line. It says that it will cancel Trident and spend the money on conventional weapons. If all the money that would be saved by cancelling Trident were spent on tanks, we would make up only 1 per cent. of the Soviet superiority over NATO in tanks. That demonstrates the nonsense of such statements. Other Labour spokesmen say that they will


spend the money on health and education. They will have to make up their mind what will happen to the money if they are able to cancel Trident.
I had the interesting experience on Wednesday 3 December of attending a debate which was opened by the leader of the Liberal party. It was a most mystifying experience. Although many of us tried to intervene, he gave way only to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, so we were unable to challenge him as we would have liked. It was astonishing to see the form that the debate took.
Liberals who carry on the Quaker or pacifist stance in that party must have found it difficult to support the Liberal motion, which they must have regarded as a sell out to the Social Democratic party. Their views are on the record. I should like to quote just two examples. In a joint article called "Across the Divide", which was apparently signed by hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in September, they said:
We must ask whether there is any military need for Britain to update the existing weapons or even to keep an independent nuclear capability at all".
If that is not enough evidence, note the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) writing in Sanity, the CND magazine, who, in 1985, said:
I agree with the Liberal Party—which is the only British Party that has always opposed a British Nuclear Deterrent".
I felt for those hon. Members on 3 December.
The Liberal motion reaffirmed support for NATO, rejected unilateral gestures and the expulsion of United States bases and affirmed the need for conventional and nuclear arms. It was a splendid sounding motion, but it was not remotely in line with the policy, even the recently cobbled together policy, that the Liberal party seems to be proposing at the moment. If ever there was a case for investigative journalism, this must be it.
In the debate on 3 December, the leader of the Liberal party set out six options for a minimum deterrent, ranging from extending the life of Polaris to the purchase of a Euro-cruise missile. Both are nonsense because it is well known—it has been stated recently by Lord Lewin—that the life of Polaris cannot in any circumstances be extended beyond 1995. The purchase of a Euro-cruise missile would also seem very unsatisfactory when it is well known that it would be vulnerable to Soviet defences. The leader of the Liberal party admitted that defence was causing serious problems and debate in the Liberal and Social Democratic parties. I do not have time to set out the present policy of the SDP.

Mr. Roger Gale: Does my hon. Friend recall that in that debate the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) spelt out his six options and said that while in opposition his party could not choose between them? Does he further recall that, when pressed, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that his party in opposition could have a policy to cancel Trident? Does he also recall that over the weekend the same right hon. Gentleman found it possible while in opposition to opt heavily for Nimrod against the AWAC system without having the technical information? Does my hon. Friend agree that that amounts to complete nonsense?

Mr. Thompson: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is typical of alliance leaders always to choose popular options and not to consider the depth of the problem involved.
I remind the House of the alliance concept of minimum deterrence, which means freezing our independent deterrent at the present level of Polaris and not moving beyond that. The alliance has put forward the ideas of exploring Anglo-French co-operation; of a battlefield nuclear free zone in Europe; and of a ban on nuclear weapons testing which is nonsense if one is considering replacing Polaris, because one cannot replace it if one cannot test a successor.
There is a dangerous assumption implied in those policies. Basically the alliance is talking about de facto unilateralism. Since it will not commit itself to what will follow Polaris, it is sweeping the problem to one side. It is unilateralism in disguise.

Mr. James Wallace: The hon. Gentleman will understand that, as I wish to speak on a constituency matter later, I may not speak in this debate. I cannot fathom his logic when he says that our policies amount to unilateralism. He prayed in aid Lord Lewin. Will he also accept that Lord Lewin said that it was responsible for Opposition parties not to commit themselves to any particular system while in opposition and without access to advice? The fact that we have stated a willingness to replace Polaris if we cannot negotiate its disposal is an important signal and in no way should be construed as unilateralism in the sense that that word may be properly applied to Labour party policies.

Mr. Thompson: I remind the hon. Gentleman that many of his party's supporters are unilateralists, and there is no way that that can be disguised. The leader of the Liberal party made it clear that he would not state which option he chose, and the hon. Gentleman has confirmed that. When will those parties decide which option to choose and what option will they then choose? The position has not been clarified by that intervention.
The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) has staked his entire career on keeping the nuclear deterrent. The so-called gang of four left the Labour party for that reason. I shall illustrate the fact that there is a genuine problem and that this has not merely been cobbled together for the debate. Alan Lee Williams, chairman of the SDP defence and disarmament group, is also the chairman of the non-partisan pro-NATO organisation called "Peace through NATO which does good work, debating against the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and putting the pro-NATO view. In September he said:
The Liberal Assembly's rejection … of the British deterrent as well as a possible European deterrent system highlights a number of current contradictions within the Alliance which have never been realistically faced. I, for example, felt obliged to resign as prospective SDP candidate for Hornchurch and Havering largely because of the unilaterists sympathies of the local Liberals who presumably disapproved of my support both for a British replacement of Polaris and for a viable European deterrent system.
I could quote further from that letter, but I shall not do so because the point is clear.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Many hon. Members know Alan Lee Williams. He put it—as he would—that he resigned. However, he got out just before the Liberal


party could shop him. The Liberal party said that it could in no way support anyone who supported Trident or a "Peace through NATO" campaign.

Mr. Thompson: I could not have described the position better. There is a real problem in the division between the Liberal and Social Democratic parties. Their defence policy was not clarified in the debate on 3 December to which I have already referred.
The challenge to the future of NATO is an intellectual challenge. I agree with those who say that it is a challenge to the consciousness and the will of the people in the West. The numbers of those attacking the Alliance, including Opposition Members—whether they are doing that deliberately or unconsciously—are considerable. We must therefore resist the slogans from those quarters such as the "Nuclear Free Zone" or "No First Use" or the "Free" slogan because they are all part and parcel of the same attack on the strength of the Alliance. To give up freedom is to jeopardise peace.
At the next election, defence will undoubtedly be an issue. The principle that the NATO Alliance must be held firm and strong will be debated during the election campaign. Although the right hon. Member for Leeds, East may have turned his coat since 1970, it is clear that the people of Britain will reject Labour's new defenceless policy that presents weakness as strength. They will, for the reasons that will be outlined by many of my hon. Friends during this debate, back the firm alternative—support of NATO and the policy of this Conservative Government.

Mr. Gerrad Neale: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on winning a place in the ballot and choosing this subject for debate. Bearing in mind the onerous duties of colleagues on both sides of the House, I am bound to say that on such an issue as this it is astonishing that only one Front-Bench spokesman from the Official Opposition is present. I accept the explanation about the predicament of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and his wanting to speak in a later debate, but on a subject as formidable as his, and particularly as it is one over which the alliance has tried to raise the political temperature, not to have someone from the Liberal or the Social Democratic parties present to take part in the debate is shameful. To protest, as the Liberals and Social Democrats protest inside and outside the House, that the rift in the alliance has healed is manifest nonsense.
I appreciate that my constituency is a long way from that of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, but it may pay him to visit my part of the world. Were he to come, he would realise that only 3 per cent. of the electorate in my constituency and not much more than that in adjoining constituencies have not seen the light about the Labour party and 97 per cent. have long since seen the light.
My constituents are in total confusion over the position of the Liberal party in these matters. Those who had the opportunity to read the speech made by the leader of the Liberal party must, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North said, have been bamboozled beyond belief. It was a vague speech and it lacked conviction. If

ever a speech complied with the definition of the phrase "mudge and fudge" used by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) the speech of the leader of the Liberal party did. There were perhaps only two points in it that were highly perceptive. The first was:
One of the first obligations of Government is to provide effectively for the defence of the country. There is no question about that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North mentioned, he then said that it was not for Opposition parties to decide on various options,
clouded as they are with conflicting advice".—[Official Report, 3 December 1986; Vol. 106, c. 987–90.]
I realise that that is a problem that the Liberal party has always had.
One tries to be charitable to the Liberal party in these circumstances because very few are. However, it is unbelievable that a responsible party can protest, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North pointed out, that it has the ability to make up its mind about Trident but does not have the ability to make up its mind about the six options. The leader of the Liberal party listed the six options, but he gave no indication as to how far each one had been considered. He did not seem to suggest that they were anything new. He even admitted that such matters had been considered at length. He talked of the M4 French missiles, for example, and said they were "discussed on many occasions."
The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to suggest at any stage that the Government had not considered them in great detail. I do not know whether he imagines that these matters have just seen the light of day. Of course, they have all been considered.
It has not been made clear how the leader of the Liberal party or the party reached their conclusion about Trident. There was no information given. It was amazing.
Six options were advanced. Previously, the leader of the Social Democratic party had advanced three options. He said that one option was a ballistic system, not Trident. If we look carefully at the Liberal's six options, we can see that that falls in. He said that cruise missiles were another option, and that can be found in the Liberal's options, so one can say that we are still left with a net six. Then he said that a very much reduced Trident was an option. Does that mean that we have seven options or six as that did not appear to feature in the loosely flung together list of options produced by the leader of the Liberal party? The Liberal party is apparently pitted against Trident but the leader of the SDP is saying that a version of it will be acceptable. All I can say is that I do not know how the Liberal party ever expects to convince anyone that it has a realistic alternative in mind.
The critical feature is that Trident is on order. On the admission of the Liberal party, the Government had all the information and they had the responsibility to make the decision and they made it in 1980. I appreciate the constraint of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, but one of the critical features the Liberal party has been advancing is that there is no need to make a decision yet. More than that, it implies that there is no need to make the decision at all yet whether it was in government or opposition.
I should like to know, and I am sure that the House would like to know, when it has been advised that the decision could be made to replace Polaris. All the information that has reached Conservative Members and


the Government is that a decision has had to be made long since in order to be certain that we have a suitable weapon in place as a minimum effective deterrent to replace Polaris.
The fact is that the Liberal party has no realistic policy. There is no joint policy between the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party. Certainly there is no decisive policy. It is a faint-hearted attempt to say to the multilateralists, "We have a commitment", yet at the same time to say to them, "Don't worry, we shall never make clear what our commitment is." Nobody is fooled.
In recent years there has been a consistent Liberal party commitment to unilateralism. The Liberal party has tried to present to the people of this country the impression that it is committed to a minimum nuclear defence policy, although manifestly it cannot put one together. As the polls have shown, it has sadly underestimated a basic instinct of the British people—their need for a strong defence system. That is why increasingly they are turning to the party that is in power, the Conservatives, and why they want the Conservative Government to be re-elected at the next general election.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Last week I spent two days in Washington, where I had discussions with Republicans, Democrats and those who are well informed about views in the United States. We cannot take United States commitment to NATO for granted. Even before the provocation of the Labour party's new defence proposals, the Mansfield and Nunn amendments failed very narrowly indeed. They would have led to the withdrawal of American forces from Europe, 80,000 troops being withdrawn each year for the next five years. That should frighten us all. We should tread very carefully.
I am sorry for the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). He must have mistaken the time of the debate; he came into the Chamber far too early. Therefore, he is being subjected to a barrage of criticism from Conservative Members. Nevertheless, I am sure that he will take it in good part. I intend to follow what has been said by my hon. Friends and to take a hard look at where exactly the Liberal party stands today in defence terms. If the Labour party's proposals spell disaster for this country—and many of them know it, including the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—the Liberal party's policy of dither would be equally disastrous, if certain events were to take place after the next general election. We know where we stand over Labour party policy. It has chosen the path of disaster. The Liberal party is just wondering which way to turn and which policy will attract the most votes.
A defence policy must be based upon a long-term commitment, and I wonder what constitutes a long-term commitment in defence terms. When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces replies to the debate I hope that he will give us his view on this. However, I should have thought that a minimum period of 10 years would be a fair estimate. Unless there is stability in defence policy we shall never be able to plan ahead and do what is right.
Let me therefore take a 10-year commitment, based on 1984, to illustrate the Liberal party's defence policy. In that year the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) led his party by the nose away from the multilateralist

approach and into the unilateralist cause that he has espoused ever since he came into politics, and probably before.

Mr. Wallace: Does the hon. Gentleman also accept that in 1984, in the same resolution to which he has already referred, the Liberal party changed the policy of more than 20 years on its attitude to the minimum deterrent, and that what had previously been a policy to scrap it on coming into office was changed to maintaining it to put it into arms negotiations talks? Does he accept that that was a very important change in policy, to which Conservative Members seldom refer?

Mr. Spicer: That is a load of old waffle. The hon. Gentleman is just trying to disguise the fact that the platforms were defeated by the hon. Member for Yeovil and his friends. They voted against cruise, and that was of crucial importance in 1984. At that time, the Liberal party was virtually led by the hon. Member for Yeovil who was, and is, a committed unilateralist, having taken part in CND rallies with the Leader of the Opposition, Ron Todd and others in 1983. In 1984—whatever may be said by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland—the unilateralists prevailed within the Liberal party. The year 1985 was a good year for the Liberal party—because it switched around and the multilateralists views prevailed. I do not know what happened that year. There had obviously been some strict talking to one or two people but the Liberal party changed its policy and became multilateralists. However, the hon. Member for Yeovil said at that conference, or just after it:
However, I remain totally opposed to the stationing of Cruise missiles in Britain. I wish to see them removed as quickly as possible.
In 1986—which I recall was a non-Yeovil year—we found new champions for the unilateralist cause. There can be no dispute that what happened at the Liberal party conference in 1986 was a major blow for the leader of the Liberal party; he said so at the time. But in late 1986 that conference decision was totally ignored and a new policy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) said in opening the debate is now being cobbled together.
The Liberals and the SDP are in the business of papering over cracks at present. Perhaps the House may remember that, two to three months ago, we were given, after a day's visit to Paris by the two leaders of the Liberal-SDP Alliance the result—it was a remarkable breakthrough, we were told—was lunch with President Mitterrand, dinner with Mr. Chirac and back to announce to the world that there was a new European dimension which we could all follow.
I could not find out from my French friends what that new European dimension was. But eventually a letter appeared in The Times from Count Jean de Lipkowski who is a member of the Chamber of Deputies. It said:
It may be that in the few weeks following the visit to Paris of Dr. Owen and Mr. Steel some misunderstandings have arisen in the United Kingdom over present French nuclear policy and our plans for the future. I would like to set out, very briefly the position as we in France see it.
France has never wavered in her resolve to build and maintain an independent nuclear deterrent. Currently our deterrent force is being updated with the M4 Missile System (just as you in the United Kingdom plan to replace Polaris with Trident), and we expect by 1990 to see a new generation of these more powerful nuclear weapons installed in all our submarines. All parties in France, both government and opposition, are committed to this replacement.


I would emphasise again that we are resolved to make the necessary provision for the completion of this expensive programme which we consider vital not only for the future security of France but for the Western Alliance as well.
Naturally we would welcome British support in such an essential matter but with or without it, our national commitment to a continuing nuclear policy is absolute and clear cut.
I do not know what was on offer. The count said it was a very expensive programme. Perhaps the two leaders went out there and said, "If you want money, we are the chaps to provide it and we will help you to update from the equivalent of Polaris to Trident for your French nuclear forces."
If the NATO Alliance is to survive, it needs a clear-cut policy from every party in the House. We know exactly where the Labour party stands and so do the British people, but none of us really knows where the Liberal party stands. We do know where the Social Democratic party stands and all I can say is that my great hope is that its leader may be able to put some steel into the Liberal party and ensure that it holds the line and comes up with a policy that will make some sense to the British people and the NATO Alliance as a whole.

Mr. Stefan Terlezki: I regret that of 209 Labour Members only two are present at a debate at midnight on NATO's function and role, which is so important that it affects hundreds of millions of people in Europe. It makes me wonder how they are will be able to take care of the defence of the citizens of Europe. It is a tragedy. I sympathise with the two Labour Members who evidently do not have the support of their colleagues who are not interested in the defence of Europe.
The Social Democratic and Liberal parties are two of a kind. Some people call them the semi-desperate people. I shall call them nothing except to say that the time will come when they have to be responsible to the electorate and state loud and clear their policy for the defence of Britain.
The object of NATO must be to preserve peace, freedom and political stability in Europe for as long, and longer, in the future as it has done in the past. I speak from experience. Freedom is like fresh air. If one does not have it, one misses it, and I know that. I can also echo the voices of hundreds of millions of people who are less fortunate than we are in Britain, and, in particular, in this free and democratic House.
The Opposition have talked about a modern Britain in a modern world. Yes, indeed—I want to see a modern Britain in a modern world and that must be what NATO requires of modern Britain in a modern world. That means that we must ensure that we preserve freedom, peace and stability, not only for ourselves but for generations to come. We must put our resources at the disposal of NATO to pursue the objectives that were set 40 years ago.
I do not believe that a single country will give its unequivocal support to the Labour party's kamikaze defence policy. Today we are in the almost unbelievable position where only one party, the Conservative party, is openly and unequivocally committed to ensuring that we maintain our full guard through NATO.
One does not have to be a student of history to know what happens when a country drops it shield. The Labour

party has made it clear that it will campaign on a non-nuclear "Yankee go home" defence policy. It would be a joke if it were not such a sad and serious matter. Labour would achieve at a stroke what the Russians have been trying to do since the war—unhook America from the defence of Europe and destroy NATO. The Russian attitude to that, if they could do it, is, the sooner the better.
If Britain were to give up its nuclear deterrent, the Soviet Union would be left with a virtual monopoly of nuclear arms and that tyrannical regime, which cares not a fig for human rights, would be uniquely able to blackmail the Alliance and the whole of mankind. Unilateralists should consider the lesson of half a century ago. What would have happened if Hitler had been in possession of the nuclear weapons that the Russians have today?
Labour has made a most dangerous proclamation in its policy on unilateral nuclear disarmament. It is a surrender to the Russians and a betrayal of the NATO Alliance and the Council of Europe. We all want peace, and that is what we in Europe have known for the past 40 years. Our children were born and grew up in peace and freedom, and their children were born in peace and freedom. That is wonderful. We want peace, but not at any price. We want peace with honour, self-respect and freedom, and that is what we must have and nothing else. We can only have that by being true to our allies in NATO. A strong NATO defence is a reminder of what we owe to a strong defence for 40 years of peace in Europe. Millions of people have been killed elsewhere in the world in conventional wars, but the nuclear balance has kept peace in our continent, thanks to NATO.
Mr. Churchill once declared that an indestructible nuclear deterrent was imperative for our survival, and Lord Mountbatten later declared that the nuclear deterrent would be capable of inflicting damage on the Russian homeland which the most hard-headed gambler could not regard as anything but unacceptable. The Labour party has established itself as unilateralist and is now gripped by neutralism and a venomous hatred of our friends the Americans who are the guarantors of Western freedom and democracy and the pillars of NATO.
The world is a dangerous place, according to the Labour Party, not because of the Russians but because of the Americans and the Alliance of free, democratic nations. Labour's apologists and fellow travellers are not interested in the fact that the world is in danger and do not what to hear that NATO has kept the peace in Europe for 40 years. It has said that a Labour Government would kick out the US nuclear bases. Labour's shadow defence spokesman has said that Labour's non-nuclear defence policy is the most radical ever presented to the electorate. He can say that again.
Under Mr. Attlee, Mr. Gaitskell, Lord Wilson and the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), the Labour party knew our allies and our enemies. It knew that in the face of the nuclear armed Soviet bully Britain had to preserve an independent nuclear deterrent or have to face nuclear blackmail.
It is no good the leader of the Labour Party and some of its members going to Norway and Luxembourg and to other NATO countries which have no nuclear weapons. We are not Norway or Luxembourg. Our nuclear forces have a political importance in the Alliance far outweighing their role as an independent deterrent. Anyone who believes that we can abandon nuclear weapons, throw out


the Americans and still remain an effective and honourable member of the military Alliance which depends for its survival on American power, I am sure is not speaking with reality or common sense.
By the turn of the century, the Russians will have a strategic defence system capable of rendering ineffective any but the most advanced, accurate and flexible nuclear striking force. The Conservative party has been identified by its opponents as the only party with an honest, coherent and practical defence policy and also totally supportive of NATO.

Mr. John Powley: I am pleased to support my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) and to speak on a matter that is of grave importance both for this country and for the free world. A number of my hon. Friends have expressed a great deal of sympathy for the Labour party, the Social Democratic party and the Liberal party in their dilemma. I differ from my hon. Friends in that respect because I have no sympathy at all for any political party that adopts a stance that would put at grave risk the security and the defence of this country that I hold so dear.
There is an old-fashioned word that one could use, and that is patriotism. I believe in patriotism and in the defence of my country. I was proud to do my national service. I am proud of my son who is a regular in the Royal Air Force. I am proud to say that I am a patriot. I do not believe that it is patriotic of any of the other parties to adopt the stance that they have adopted which puts the security and defence of this nation at grave risk.
There should not be differences between the defence policies of the political parties in this country. From my memory of politics, many years ago there was no difference between the defence policies of the political parties. They all had a common aim, a common goal, a more or less common defence policy that was followed by political parties after the experience of the second world war. They realised what had happened. They had learnt the lessons from the late 1930s, in particular, and they agreed on a more or less common defence policy.
I am very sad that those defence policies have fallen apart, but I am glad to say that the political party that I belong to, and have always belonged to, has remained steadfast in the policies that it learned through experience during the second world war and successive years. Those policies were right then and they are absolutely right today. They make plain common sense. They ensure that we are properly defended and are able to resist any aggressor who might be intent on incursions into it.
There can be no doubt that Russia and its satellites have aggressive intentions. Indeed, the aim of the Communists, as I understand it, is to secure world domination by whatever means, however long it may take them. After we won the second world war, Russia took over any number of countries and has kept those countries under the yoke of Communism and Russian domination. Using the old domino threat, it is trying to increase its influence in the world. There can be no doubt that some countries have aggressive intentions. That being so, we must retain a strong defensive Alliance.
I have no sympathy for the fact that the Opposition parties have been hijacked by the unilateralists, by the so-called peacemongers and by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I do not know why they have been taken

over. I suspect that they simply did not have the guts to tell those people that their philosophy was entirely wrong and that they wanted no part of it. I suspect that the Opposition parties thought, "We have had peace for a while; there may be some votes in it for us." The policies being followed by the alliance and by the Labour party would lead inevitably to the removal of American bases from East Anglia—

Mr. Wallace: What?

Mr. Powley: That would be the inevitable result.

Mr. Wallace: When have the Liberal party or the SDP produced a policy that would lead to the removal of American bases in Britain? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in almost every document, we have affirmed that we would maintain American bases, including nuclear bases, in Britain as part of our NATO commitment?

Mr. Powley: The policies agreed at the Liberal party's conference this year would inevitably lead to the removal of American bases. There is no question about that. The Opposition parties are trying to confuse us. There is an SDP policy, a Liberal party policy and a joint SDP-Liberal policy, which has not been approved by either party conference. The inevitable result of Liberal party policies agreed at its assembly this year would be the removal of nuclear and non-nuclear American bases from East Anglia. Apart from the defence aspect of the removal of those bases, East Anglia would suffer economically as it has not suffered for as long as I can remember. A tremendous number of jobs and a large amount of money depend upon the American bases in East Anglia, and their removal would have a disastrous economic effect.
I hope—perhaps it is a forlorn hope—that the Opposition will see the error of their ways. I do not wish to fight a general election on defence policies, because I hope that we could have a common defence policy. Britain's security depends on and deserves that. But if we must have differences between the political parties, I shall be happy to fight the general election on those differences, and I am confident of the outcome and of the support of the British people.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I do not often call in aid the support of the alliance parties, but I am certain that they share my deep concern over the Government's policies. Conservative Members have felt it necessary to spend an hour bashing the opposition parties without once finding one word to say in favour of their own party. I can understand that, because attack is always the best form of defence. If a party has a weak case, it will attack the enemy, shout loud and hope that nobody realises the problems that exist with its policy and system.
I understand that feeling, and there was an example of it today when the Opposition were attempting to alter the business to allow us to have a special debate on Nimrod, which Mr. Speaker decided should not take place. Nimrod is an example of the type of weakness that we see within NATO. For seven years the Government have been responsible for the policy of trying to ensure that we have proper control, and they have failed. They have created a sour atmosphere, which must weaken our position in NATO and our ability to defend ourselves. They have failed to answer any of the questions which have been raised and they have refused even to have an independent


inquiry following the Secretary of State's statement that both systems work, both Nimrod and AWACS. It seems that the Government will favour the American system, and they are pouring out a great deal of disinformation about the British product.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. McNamara: No. I allowed everyone to have his say by not seeking to interrupt, and I shall now have my say.
I am concerned about NATO and its strength, and if Europe loses more and more of its high technology base to the Americans, we shall cease to have a firm European pillar within NATO and will become a satellite to the United States. I do not believe that that is what the United States wants, and it would not be good for Europe, but that is what is likely to happen. I say to the Government, even at this late hour, that they should support the steps already taken by GEC to appoint independent assessors and get away from the sour atmosphere surrounding the early warning replacement system—

Mr. Jim Spicer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. McNamara: The Government should realise that the strength of NATO depends as much on the industrial strength of the European nations as upon the strength of the United States.
When we listen to Conservative Members talking about NATO, it is clear that they have a schizophrenic attitude to it and the American alliance. The right hon. Lady the Prime Minister is often referred to as President Reagan's poodle, but that is unfair to poodles, which often show independence. Basically, at the bottom of the Conservative party's general defence policy and its slavish adherence to the idea of Trident, there is a suspicion of the United States. Its attitude is that we must keep Trident. The Prime Minister wrote to President Gorbachev to say: "It does not matter what you agree with President Reagan, we shall keep Trident." She tries to persuade the European allies not full-heartedly to back the Americans in their desire to get rid of ballistic missiles.

Mr. Keith Best: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, the answer is no.
The Government say that there is a limit below which a British Conservative Government would not go in maintaining Trident as part of our system. That means that they do not trust the United States in the long run. It seems that in the long run they do not believe that Washington is to be swapped for London in a nuclear exchange. If that is the Government's attitude, we are entitled to say to them what they do not believe in NATO. That is their great problem. They do not know where they stand on these matters. They are schizophrenes over their loyalty. When we start talking about unilateral disarmament, it is the Conservative Government who have disarmed unilaterally. The Government were prepared to accept Sir John Nott's White Paper, which proposed to cut our surface fleet. The Government sold off to the Saudis

Tornadoes that were meant for the RAF. The Government have cancelled mines. The Government have postponed towed array radar for our frigates.

Mr. Best: Humbug.

Mr. McNamara: It is not humbug. The hon. Gentleman should read what his own Secretary of State said in the Defence Estimates. These were unilateral actions taken by the Government without any reference to our NATO allies.
The Government have cut defence spending by 6 per cent. That was a straight, unilateral decision. That is within their powers—nobody is quarrelling with that—but to say that only the Labour party believes in unilateralism is to fly in the face of the history of the Government. Therefore, one is entitled to say to the Government that to parade a row of Back Benchers to try to have a go at the Opposition parties' defence policies is a load of hypocrisy. What does the Labour party say that we should do? We should take a leaf from the attitude of the American Government.

Mr. Best: Subjection to the Americans.

Mr. McNamara: Now it comes out—subjection to the Americans. Anti-Americanism is now coming out. Conservative Members say that we will be subject to the Americans. They are the ones who gave them our Westland technology, who are prepared to give them Land Rover and who will give them our early warning system. They are the people who say that we are completely subject to the Americans.

Mr. Best: Will the hon. Gentleman have the courtesy to give way?

Mr. Patrick Thompson: rose—

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I have to conclude my remarks, or the Minister will not have an opportunity to reply. The hon. Gentleman is pointing at me. I can only return the compliment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. It is quite obvious that the hon. Gentleman will not give way.

Mr. McNamara: The real problem is that Conservative Members, full of their own self-importance, start to parade their patriotism. When we get a little of our own back, they suddenly start to writhe in their seats and get upset about it. They must learn to take it because they will get it continuously. This is the policy that will win the next election, and we are doing it. After all, the Labour party founded NATO. The Labour party strengthened NATO and will continue to strengthen and fulfil its conventional part in NATO. We take the line from President Reagan, who said:
For too long, we and our allies have permitted nuclear weapons to be a crutch, a way of not having to face up to our real defence needs. We must free ourselves from that crutch. Our goal must be to deter and if necessary to repel any aggression without resort to nuclear arms.
We in the Labour party say that that is a good starting point for NATO. We depend too much upon a multitude of nuclear weapons, to such a degree that it is quite possible that war could accidentally happen. We say to our allies, "Let us step back and examine the proper ways in which we can defend our continent, so that, if we were to be attacked by the Warsaw pact, they would feel the strength of our response, and that response would not be based upon the first use of nuclear weapons and turn our


continent into a cinder box. That is our policy. The hon. Member for Norwich, North has said many rude things about people, including Mrs. Joan Ruddock, who will be a proud Member on the Government benches after the next election.
The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) also objected to our children studying peace. What does he want them to study—war? Does he not think that we should spend our time trying to decide how to avert war? That is how we should spend our time. The hon. Gentleman wants to pooh-pooh it as, historically, Tories always have done. we must remember that they were the men of Munich, preferring war to peace. [Interruption.] Conservative Members should not say, "Ah." They do not like it, but they will have it anyway. We are saying to our allies: we shall fulfil our NATO commitment. We shall fill the gaps in our conventional forces. We shall ensure that the money that we save from nuclear weapons is put into our Army, our Navy and our Air Force to assert our ability to maintain and build up our conventional forces.
We shall not, as the hon. Member for Norwich, North said spend the money that we transfer from Trident on social programmes, much as we should like to, because we realise the desperate state in which the Government have left our conventional forces. Our first duty as a Government is to make sure that our country is safe, and not to put it on a perilous tightrope such as the Government are likely to do, when the only response that we shall have to any sort of threat will be an immediate nuclear response. We know, the dangers of that because, after all, a nuclear response will not frighten anyone a great deal, as Lord Carrington himself knew when he was Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. So we shall say to our allies: let us build up our conventional forces.

Mr. Best: How?

Mr. McNamara: Let us ensure that our men are properly equipped—

Mr. Best: How? With what?

Mr. McNamara: —and that we have the best of modern conventional weaponry to deter an enemy.
Labour's defence policy in Europe, and therefore NATO, is based on two principles—first, a continued and positive role within the NATO Alliance, and secondly, United Kingdom unilateral nuclear disarmament and the removal of nuclear bases from the United Kingdom and its waters. Basically, Labour says that we are committed to the maintenance of the British Army of the Rhine at its current strength, in keeping with our treaty obligations. We seek to maintain a surface fleet of approximately 50 frigates to maintain our NATO obligation for 70 per cent. of the naval forces of the Eastern Atlantic—

Mr. Best: It is the same with the Government.

Mr. McNamara: The problem is that it is not the same with the Government. They are not ordering the ships to do so.
We seek to maintain our tactical air force commitments in Germany, to replace Fearless and Intrepid for the proper sustenance and reinforcement of the northern flank during any build-up towards hostilities, and to collaborate with our European colleagues in the production of the European fighter aircraft. On the industrial front, we are

keen to maintain our policies of European collaboration to ensure that, within the European pillar of NATO, there is a strong, viable arms industry because we believe that it is important that we have a strong industrial base in Europe and that we are allies of the United States, not her clients.
The difference is that, within the budget that the Government have proposed and the task that they give our forces, they cannot fulfil all their commitments. We believe that by cancelling Trident we can maintain a strong, united NATO and the role of our conventional forces within it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): This has been a wide-ranging debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on his good fortune in securing it. He talked about the miseducation of youth by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and, indeed, the policies of the Labour party. I shall pursue his line of argument, and not that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) with his devastating demolition of the policies of the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party, largely because it is difficult to know precisely what one is criticising.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) asked me to respond briefly about the time scale needed for the introduction of new strategic nuclear weapons. I can confirm that the decision to introduce Trident, which was taken in the early 1980s, is designed to bring it into effect in the mid 1990s. That is a time scale of more than 10 years. The conclusion is that, if the Liberal party is interested in power in 10 or 15 years, it had better start making decisions now.
I should like to take up the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I treated his speech seriously, just as I treat the Labour party's policy. I should like to raise six aspects of the Labour party's policy and illustrate as briefly as I can the fallacies in its arguments. First, the Labour party argues that the United Kingdom contributes only an insignificant—that is the Labour party's word—percentage of the West's missiles. The argument is that the United Kingdom makes little real contribution to the defence that is enshrined in NATO policy. That is not true. It is true that the United Kingdom's weapons are only a small proportion of those of the forces of the United States and of the Soviet Union, but, as the House knows, one Polaris or one Trident boat can pack a very powerful punch. Furthermore, the Government's possession of the independent nuclear deterrent adds a complication to the plans of any aggressor which it would be foolish to disregard.
Secondly, the Labour party argues that the United States will not mind having its nuclear forces withdrawn from the United Kingdom. The Labour party has said that the United States can maintain its intelligence-gathering installations in the United Kingdom and that even its submarines may call at British ports. That argument is untrue as well. The United States has some 300,000 service men in western Europe. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, among others, hopes that western Europe will follow the example of a Labour Government—if we ever reach that unfortunate position—and disarm, so my remarks are addressed in the European context.
I do not think, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West said, that we can take the Americans for granted. I urge the House to take a cautious attitude to what the American Congress and American people would think and do if their nuclear weapons were removed not only from these shores but from western Europe. They would ask, what is to deter an attack on their conventional forces? The withdrawal of their nuclear weapons would undermine NATO's central doctrine of flexible response. Conventional forces cannot be substituted for nuclear forces. If the Americans are forced to withdraw nuclear weapons from western Europe, the core strategy of NATO fails.
The Labour party's third argument is that the United Kingdom will still support NATO and will contribute conventional, but not nuclear, forces and that damage will not be done to NATO. I argue that that is not true. The United Kingdom has traditionally been an important part of NATO. Unilateral nuclear disarmament would shake NATO to the core. It would damage the flexible response strategy and the unity of the Alliance, because it would close out one of the key options that NATO must have in its doctrine of flexible response. To deter any act of aggression, NATO must have the full panopoly of weapons—from conventional forces, through theatre nuclear forces, through strategic forces. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Terlezki) said in a typically trenchant contribution, not one Government of a major country in western Europe supports the Labour party's policy.
The fourth argument advanced by the Labour party is that substituting conventional forces for nuclear weapons would be just as effective a contribution to NATO. I remind the House that Trident, which a Labour Government would cancel, accounts for about 6 per cent. of our equipment budget on average during the procurement period. I think that that was in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Best) when he sought to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. I contend that the Labour party's argument is not correct. On our calculations, cancellation of Polaris and Trident would add between one and two armoured divisions. Facing 50,000 Warsaw pact tanks west of the Urals would be not 17,000 NATO tanks as at present, but 17,300. I invite the Labour spokesman to challenge that figure. In other words, the extra conventional forces that the Labour party would add would make no difference to the conventional balance.

Mr. Best: It is significant that no Labour Front-Bench spokesman has told the House what additional conventional weapons are envisaged. We have heard only

broad generalities. Does it not follow, as day follows night, that if a Labour Government undertook the unilateral nuclear disarmament of this country our service men in Europe would suffer the full brunt of any Warsaw pact attack because ours would be the only country standing against established NATO policy?

Mr. Freeman: I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend has said. It is interesting to note that in the recent Labour party political broadcast on television there was no specific reference to the additional conventional forces that would be introduced following the cancellation of Trident.
The fifth argument is that Labour policy would make this country safer from nuclear attack and fallout. [Interruption.] The leader of the Labour party clearly said that at the Labour party conference, but I do not believe that it is true. In a nuclear exchange there will be no safe place in Europe and damaging NATO and the concept of flexible response would lay us open to blackmail by any aggressor. Even in the case of limited use of nuclear weapons by an aggressor, geography and strategic importance would make the United Kingdom an obvious target. Indeed, Labour party policy could make this country a more dangerous place in that it would be more tempting for an aggressor to use nuclear weapons against us because we could not respond.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister has said and all Government publications on the matter state that spending on Trident would be 6 per cent. of the procurement budget on average over the procurement period. Can the Minister tell us what proportion of the procurement budget it will be in 1989–90?

Mr. Freeman: The only correct measure is over the entire procurement period, for the simple reason that I gave earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West—that one must look over a period of 10 to 15 years in replacing strategic weapons systems.
The Labour party's final argument is that unilateral disarmament by this country would help the cause of world peace. In my view, that is also untrue. There is no evidence that past gestures have been reciprocated. I cite as an example the United States decision for the past 17 years not to produce chemical weapons in the face of aggressive Soviet stockpiling of such weapons. I believe that the reverse is true and that the effect would be to destabilise world security. I believe that disarmament can be more effective through multinational pressures than through unilateral gestures.
The Labour party has an understandable revulsion for nuclear warfare. I understand its deeply held feelings, but they have clouded its clear and rational judgment about nuclear deterrence. During the past few months, the Labour party has concentrated entirely on nuclear warfare, and failed to realise that nuclear deterrence is the best safeguard against nuclear warfare.

Orders of the Day — Housing Policy

1 am

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am sure that the House is aware that housing is in a state of crisis, affecting thousands of people in all parts of the United Kingdom. I shall address myself to the problems of homelessness and the housing stock throughout the United Kingdom.
The evidence of the past seven and a half years proves that the Tories in government have been pretty shocking housekeepers. That is perhaps remarkable as the Government are led by a woman who now and again pretends that she is just a housewife. There has been substantial neglect.
Twenty years ago, to within a couple of weeks, the television play "Cathy Come Home" brought home to the British public the seriousness of the problem of homelessness and the fact that there was a major housing crisis. Successive Governments stand pretty comprehensively indicted as, 20 years later, the problem is significantly worse. It is now a case of Cathy's children, who want to come home, getting little or no help from the Government.
Bed and breakfast regulations force young people to keep moving or sleep rough. Homelessness has risen to record levels—well over 100,000. The number of people in England and Wales accepted as homeless under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977—one of the most useful pieces of legislation, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross)—has risen from 53,000 in 1978 to 94,000 in 1985. In Scotland, the comparable figures are 15,245 and 25,536. That is a shocking problem, and it is only the tip of the iceberg.
The number of hidden homeless is much greater. I refer, for example, to young couples who live in cramped conditions with relatives and friends. Every hon. Member probably meets such young people virtually every week. They rightly want a home of their own, and preferably before they start a family, but they are put in an invidious position. They have to start a family to secure enough points to give them the priority that they need, and even then they see others leapfrog over them because their needs are assessed, probably quite rightly, as more urgent.
Any responsible Government should address themselves to that problem. Far from doing that, however, the Government have pursued policies that have made the problem worse. The Government simply do not care and are prepared to write off that section of the community.
While homelessness has grown, the quality of the housing stock has deteriorated. According to the Department of the Environment's criteria, it has deteriorated to the point at which the Department faces a bill of £20 billion-plus to put it right. It is disgraceful that, as we get towards the end of the 20th century, millions of homes are still affected by chronic dampness, condensation, poor insulation and costly heating bills. We endure record numbers of old people dying from hypothermia each winter.
Those of us who have contact with our neighbours in northern Europe will find that they do not understand why we have such a serious problem. They do not have to address themselves to that to anything like the same extent. The Scandinavians in particular and other northern European neighbours must wonder whether we

have discovered that we live in a cold, damp group of islands. We certainly do not build or maintain houses as if we have. What makes matters worse is that we are not taking sufficient remedial action fast enough. In other words, the problem is growing worse every day and we are not even holding ground.
Against that background, home improvement grants have been cut and home repairs subjected to VAT; the consequence of both is that many people are financially embarrassed and unable to maintain their homes. At the same time, in the public sector, local authority funding has been cut, so that local authorities cannot carry out the necessary repairs and improvements or deal with what can be described only as the obscenity of 680,000 empty properties which could and should be homes for the homeless. Yet we are not addressing ourselves to that serious problem.
We have the worst insulated and least energy efficient homes in Europe, yet within a couple of weeks we shall approach the end of Energy Efficiency Year. In that year the Government have cut the allocation of funding for loft insulation by more than 30 per cent. when they should have increased the grant and extended it to cover wall insulation, thermostats and so on.
Good work that is being done by the Manpower Services Commission's backing of insulation projects is coming under question, especially in rural areas where, by definition, the unit costs are higher and the need is often greater. I visited a project in my constituency only a couple of weeks ago.

Mr. David Penhaligon: Didn't we all.

Mr. Bruce: As my hon. Friend rightly says, many of us did.
I visited the relatively remote parish of Glass where an 84-year-old lady was having her house insulated by the MSC Gordon rural insulation project. That project could well have finished today because of the withdrawal of funding. I have not been able to establish whether there has been an extension. The argument is that, because more time is spent travelling and houses are dotted about in country areas, it is inefficient and that it would be better to whip through a housing scheme in a city. That is not the way the countryside is, and the Government should take account of reality. In rural areas the need is often greater. Old people live in remote cottages, may be snowed up and will not necessarily have regular contact. There the risks of hypothermia are correspondingly greater.
The Government may retort that one of the great merits of their policies has been to increase the number of home owners. As I have said, many people cannot for a variety of reasons become home owners and the Government are ignoring them. There are also casualties among people who have taken the Government's advice and either bought their council house or a private house. They find that the cost of maintaining their house on top of high interest mortgages in circumstances where the Government have cut repair and insulation grants and imposed VAT has placed them in financial difficulties. The House may remark on some of the statistics that help to prove that.
The number of mortgages in arrears has risen from 8,420 throughout the United Kingdom in 1979 to 60,390 in 1985. The number of houses taken into possession by building societies has increased from 2,530 in 1979 to


16,590 in 1985. All the signs are that this problem is on an upward curve. Home ownership has not been a dream for everybody. For some people it has turned into a nightmare to which the Government have contributed.
We have witnessed the Government's latest foray into this area with their cuts in social security payments towards the cost of mortgage interest for the first three months out of work. That will clearly add to the problems. it will make many people believe that it simply does not pay to be thrifty under the Tory Government because people will be penalised for being thrifty.
The cut in social security payments towards the cost of mortgage interest will create special problems in areas such as my constituency where, because of the fall in oil prices, many people are being made redundant who have very heavy commitments on their mortgages and in many cases, because they have bought recently, they simply do not have the savings to enable them to absorb that kind of problem. We hear stories of people walking into the building society offices and throwing their keys at the manager and of others applying for council houses because they are about to be made homeless.
The alliance is right to call for urgent action now. We have a stated programme of what we want to do in government, but the problem is more urgent than that and we must still impress on the Government the seriousness of the crisis to which they have contributed and the need for specific and urgent action.
To start with, the Government must restore capital spending to cope with the problems that I have identified. An initial boost of at least £2 billion is likely to be necessary throughout the United Kingdom to get that programme rolling. I believe that 90 per cent. home improvement grants should be restored. After all, an election is coming and that is the time when the Government usually introduce such schemes. The sooner they announce such a scheme the better, and that rate should apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. However, this time it could usefully be targeted to assist first-time buyers and people on low incomes to give the maximum support where it is most needed.
Insulation grants should be increased, not cut. The grant should be covered to extend not just to loft insulation but to wall insulation and the provision of thermostats. It would be helpful if the Government would consider extending tax relief to energy improvements in homes, whether that is alternative energy or greater energy efficiency. There is no incentive there at all at present.
The Government have prevented local authorities in England and Wales from using all the money that they have received from the sale of council houses. That is a figure of £6 billion that local authorities would dearly like to use now to deal with problems in their areas and to meet local needs. The Government should be prepared to allow local authorities access to that money now. I suspect—although I cannot prove this—that we are in a worse position in Scotland, where that money is not banked. The Government theoretically allowed local authorities to use all the money, but they have successively cut the housing support grant, so in reality we may have kissed goodbye to the money altogether.
A housing condition survey revealed that £19 billion is necessary to restore the housing stock in England and Wales. The Government ducked that exercise in Scotland,

no doubt because they are frightened of what it might show. Given the general higher proportion of public authority housing in Scotland and the rundown condition of some of the older property, it is certain that Scotland will require, pro rata, a larger injection of capital.
The problem that I identified at the beginning of my remarks obviously relates to problems of dealing with the shortage of rented accommodation. That problem should be approached in a flexible manner. Local authorities have a role to play in providing amenity housing, although the Government now seem to have choked off that supply. There can be a mixture of housing associations and public and private funding, including partnership schemes for redeveloping urban areas. Those ideas have been tried and tested and we believe that they should be extended.
I want to make a constituency plea within that context. The priority status given by the Scottish Special Housing Association to oil-related workers in the north of Scotland should be removed immediately. It is absurd in the present climate that those houses are reserved for oil workers when unemployment is increasing in that sector. They could be made available to health workers, teachers and other public service staff who are not able to move into the area but are badly needed. There is no justification for maintaining that priority status.
I believe that the Government should show a little more radical thought about how they broaden the basis of home ownership. We, like them, support the principle of home ownership, but we would always argue that it is not for everybody. There are circumstances in which people, for very good reasons, need to rent. It may be because they cannot afford to buy or because—my constituency is bearing this out—one of the disadvantages of home ownership is that it discourages mobility when there is change in value. Many of us hear of people frightened to move out of London, sometimes to a better job, for fear that they will not be able to get back on to the housing ladder in London. Perhaps the Government should attend to the widening differential between the cost of housing in London and the rest of the country. The discrepancies are absurd.
I wonder when the market will start to show any intelligence. I have received through my door recently, as I suspect have other hon. Members, brochures and letters advertising two-bedroom flats in dockland for £240,000 to £360,000. I do not know about you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if I ever had £240,000 I could think of a lot better ways to spend it than on a two-bedroom flat in dockland, but perhaps I have a better understanding of the market than the lunacy that seems to characterise the way in which the City operates to create such absurd values. I understand that the value of the Prime Minister's house in Dulwich has increased by three times the average value of a family house anywhere outside London. That is an obscene distortion that should be tackled, and if the Government had any real commitment to solving the problem they would tackle it.
The Minister should respond to the problem of the disposal of houses belonging to British Coal in the coalfield communities where considerable injustices are taking place and an irresponsible process is going on. People are finding that the houses in which they have lived for 30 or 40 years have been sold over their heads, sometimes to a totally unknown buyer, and very often resold. They are then faced with buyers who will rackrent their houses and not maintain them. That is unacceptable.


I know that the Government may say that the tenants are given the opportunity to buy at a 50 per cent. discount, but that is only at short notice and many of them cannot raise the money that fast. They should be given some security to stay in those homes and retain the right to buy, either by having them transferred to the local authority, for which the local authorities would need cash, or by having them retained by British Coal. It seems that the local authority is the most appropriate body to take them over.
I believe that I have covered a reasonable range of issues affecting housing in this country. I believe that it affects people in every part of the country, that it gives rise to anger and, in many cases, fear of not having a roof over their heads. There is bitterness that the philosophy of the present Government seems to be concerned only with those who can afford comfortably to sustain the buying of their own homes, and even those people are finding that that is not as easy as they thought.
The rented public sector market has been neglected, the less well maintained older private sector is not being given adequate support and we continue to live in the most poorly housed country in Europe where the problems of homelessness, dampness and condensation are getting worse as are the problems of decaying housing stock. The Minister should be able to tell us, not just for Scotland but for the whole of the United Kingdom, what the Government propose to do about a problem that is a disgrace.

Mr. Terry Fields: Anybody with an ounce of common decency would accept that decent housing is a basic human right to which everybody is entitled, particularly in a so-called civilised society. The Government's alleged commitment to the sanctity of family life has been proved to be hypocritical. They have created conditions that deny basic human rights to many people in this country. Since 1979 they have perpetuated and increased the problems for both the young and the old. Many of them are isolated in high-rise flats that were built in the 1960s and the 1970s.
Young couples in areas of high unemployment—as in Liverpool—have no chance of getting out of council houses and buying property. Local authorities have been forced by the Government to sell off property, much of it the best housing stock, thus reducing the number of council houses that are available for those who cannot afford to buy their own homes. As if that were not bad enough, local authorities cannot even spend the money that they earn from the sale of council houses to provide housing in their areas for those who need it.
New council house starts slumped from 140,700 in 1975 to 69,400 in 1979. Many of the system built and high-rise blocks of the 1960s and 1970s whose building was encouraged by subsidies to developers under both Tory and Labour Governments have turned into modern slums, and their tenants are dissatisfied. Before the Labour party came to power in Liverpool in 1983, there was absolute misrule and chaos over council housing in the Liberal-Tory administration. During the last four years of that administration not one council house was built, and when Labour formed the administration it discovered that there were 22,000 people on the housing waiting list.
There have been three effects. According to the April 1986 returns—as spelt out in this Chamber by the Secretary of State on 18 November—Liverpool city

council, with a housing stock of 64,836, had 7,704 houses vacant, 5,637 houses awaiting demolition and 4,283 houses that had been vacant for over a year awaiting repair. In that same stock of 64,836 houses there were 14,547 difficult-to-let houses in the Liverpool area.
In a housing authority with private sector responsibilities and a stock of 97,860 houses, the Secretary of State told the House in a written answer that 10,656 of them were unfit for human habitation, that 3,865 lacked basic amenities and that 35,640 needed to be renovated. That has not happened just since 1983 when Labour took power in Liverpool. However, it has been accused of being responsible for the decline in the housing stock and for the decline in the amount of accommodation that is available. However, had it not been for Liverpool city council, conditions for tens of thousands of people in Liverpool would be very much worse than they are today.
Since this Government came to power in 1979, Liverpool's housing investment programme has been cut by £150 million. If grants had continued at the 1979 level, Liverpool would have had an additional £150 million to spend in an area of gross deprivation. Housing subsidy has been reduced by £70 million. The effect on the private sector has led to restrictions on improvements and repairs. The housing action areas have also been hit by financial cuts. Grants to those in need have also been cut. The sole responsibility for this since 1979 rests with the Tory Government. Liverpool's responsibility for cuts since 1983 when the Labour party came to power, in no way matches the Government's crimes against the people of Liverpool.
Additionally, we must say quite clearly that the rate support grant has affected housing. Since 1979, Liverpool has lost £185 million in rate support grant. If that had not been stolen, we could have provided more employment to resolve the housing problem and finance housing services in the public and private sectors of Liverpool over and above what we must do now. So those things must be linked to the housing crisis in places like Liverpool.
We must also consider the background of people in the house hunting market, because between 1979 and 1986 more than 75,000 jobs have been lost in Liverpool. The manufacturing sector has lost 45,000 jobs. Unemployment is 26 to 27 per cent., and 53 per cent. of the population has been unemployed for more than one year. On some of the estates in Liverpool there is 94 per cent. youth unemployment and, at the same time, about 20,000 people are on the housing waiting list. They cannot buy houses because many families are unemployed. They cannot let houses in some areas of Liverpool, because houses are not being built. But we must give credit to Liverpool city council for the tremendous pamphlet it put out, free of charge, called "Success against the odds" which itemises what Labour has done on Liverpool city council since it came to power in 1983.
Liverpool city council has set up and identified 17 priority areas and embarked upon an imaginative scheme of urban regeneration. The scheme's proposals affect 40,000 people in Liverpool and address the problems over an area of 400 hectares of densely populated land. Since 1983, 350 council houses and/or bungalows have been built or are in the process of being built by "top downing"—a technical expression which means that three-storey houses have either the top storey or the two top storeys taken off to create either bungalows or two-storey houses. A total of 810 walk up flats have been used in this way. a further 4,080 houses and flats have been or are in the


process of being improved under the urban regeneration strategy. Since 1983, more than 6,000 unsatisfactory properties have been or are in the process of being demolished, including the infamous "Piggeries" which is an absolute condemnation of past generations who allowed such housing conditions to prevail.
Also since 1983, 3,800 much needed council houses and bungalows have been or are in the process of being built for people in the Liverpool area. Despite the lies and the distortions which some people put out about Liverpool's Labour city council, it has a commitment to and is involved in the private sector as well. The private sector renewal strategy has the following key elements: an area approach, by the declaration of housing action areas and general improvement areas where capital and revenue resources will be concentrated, an emphasis upon improvements by the owners themselves, whether owner-occupiers or landlords with the support of improvement grants, a partnership with the housing corporation and the local housing associations to ensure co-ordinated use of resources and a recognition that environmental conditions in the areas as well as improvement to the properties must be tackled.
The progress Labour has made since coming to power in 1983 has meant that in 1982–83 the number of private dwellings improved was 1,721. In 1983–84 it was 1,802; in 1984–85, 1,944; and in 1985–86, 1,369. The council has declared its intention to designate a further 25 housing action areas. These are being declared during 1986 and will be administered by the decentralised area improvement teams which are responsible for progressing the private sector renewal programme. Additionally, owner-occupiers who are waiting to improve their homes can get help from the council's agency service. The service can make all the arrangements for improving owner-occupied houses, including surveys, plans, finding a contractor and supervising the work. So that Labour has a commitment to the private and the public sector.
In 1986 the technical study undertaken to see the byproduct of the building of houses and the urban regeneration strategy in Liverpool showed clearly the tremendous prospect that we have for creating jobs in an area of high unemployment. In Liverpool alone, as a direct consequence of the programme undertaken by the Labour-controlled city council, 16,489 jobs were generated in the private sector which had a tremendous effect on the building industry and on those building workers thrown out because of the policies of the Tory Government. Due regard has been paid to the city council by firms such as Wimpey, McTay, Cubitts, Cruden, Fawley and a number of other private sector developers.
The Government jumped at the chance to create a property-owning boom and a bonanza for the banks and building societies, competing with each other to lend money because of the policy not to build council houses. As a result of a further decline in all house building, house prices in the private sector began to rise sharply. Comfortably well-off house owners in the south-east in particular suddenly found themselves with handsome chunks of real estate—assets which they could then use to borrow more money, helping to boost the explosion in credit and fuelling the property boom. But the rising prices

brought difficulties for first-time buyers and the burden of high mortgage payments have led to an increasing number of defaults, particularly among young people.
The increase in home ownership has led to growing and now stark inequalities in housing. Well-off home owners benefit from huge sums given out in mortgage interest tax relief. A single person on £30,000 a year receives an average of £1,700 in mortgage tax relief and may be able to claim other tax allowances, whereas someone on £4,000 would receive only an average of £280 in mortgage tax relief. Even the Tory wets have acknowledged the inequalities in housing in that respect. The cost of mortgage tax relief to the Government has now soared to £4·5 billion while council house investment has slumped to £2·5 billion. In 1979 the subsidy to council tenants was £1·23 for every £1 of mortgage tax relief. By 1983 the situation had more than reversed with the subsidy for council tenants being 53p for every £1 of mortgage tax relief.
In addition, we must look at the consequences of the Tory Government's policies economically and to housing finance. In December 1979 in Britain alone 2,530 properties were taken possession of by building societies and by 1986 that figure has escalated dramatically to 20,020. In 1979 8,420 mortgages were over six months in arrears and by June 1986 the figure had jumped to 66,930.
On top of all that, people who through no fault of their own find themselves in difficulties will find themselves in greater difficulties as a result of the policy introduced last week by the Government on supplementary benefit relating to mortgage interest. That will mean that 90,000 families will be pushed deeper into debt, leading to eviction and, no doubt, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said last week, marital breakdown.
We also find that the family consisting of a husband, wife and two children with a £16,000 mortgage will have to find an additional £17 a week out of supplementary benefit of £70 a week—in effect, a quarter of the weekly income—as a direct result of the Government's policies.
This is a horror story for working class low-paid workers, and young people in particular, looking for a decent house and a decent future for themselves and their families. The alliance might have some illusions in pleading to the better nature of the Minister and the Tory Government to reverse their policies on council houses and their attitudes to Britain's building industry, but I have no such illusions and nor does the Labour party. Liverpool, and its people in particular, look forward to the next general election when a Labour Government will be elected to deal with the serious problems affecting us in Britain in building houses for people in need.
We in the Labour party must pay due regard to past errors. People in Broadgreen must realise that now they are not part of the 17 priority areas in the city, or of the urban regeneration strategy. The only hope for people in Broadgreen for house improvements, house building programmes and urban regeneration and for all the other things that Liverpool city council has done in other areas is a Labour council in the city working hand in hand with a Labour Government. That can resolve the problems.
Labour's policy must be directed towards breaking the power of big business in order to provide the resources for housing and other needs. Labour must campaign to win support for a genuine Socialist programme of housing and home ownership. The nationalisation of the banks and the


insurance companies would be relevant and beneficial, even to middle-class voters, if it meant the provision of cheap credit at stable rates or state assisted mortgages.
Housing is a serious problem. Anyone walking around London late at night can see the homeless, who can also be seen in our major cities. The policies of the Government are a disaster and only a Labour Government committed to a decent, planned house building programme can resolve the problems and meet the needs of the homeless, the people in despair in 1986 in a so-called civilised society.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) in his private paranoia. He speaks about the need for a Labour Government and a Labour council to deal with the problems he mentions, but fails to remind the House that it was under a Labour Government that all the evils of high-rise flats and the problems of industrial building were created.

Mr. Terry Fields: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my speech he would have heard me speak about that.

Mr. Meadowcroft: The hon. Gentleman believes that if he repeats inaccuracies often enough, even he might begin to believe them. If he understood the principle of housing revenue for local authorities he would know that the provision of houses in Liverpool was far better accomplished through housing associations and cooperatives than by direct building by the council. The hon. Gentleman sees house building as worthwhile only if it is done by the state. I reject that.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about what Liverpool city council might wish to do and might be doing now. All the things about which he spoke may in themselves be excellent, but none of us have any problems about sorting out the expenditure side of our budgets. The problems arise when we try to find the income to pay for that expenditure. The fact that we are doing good by spending is never an excuse if we cannot afford to spend that money. One is doing good by spending has been the plaintive cry of the bankrupt down the ages. How on earth can we cope with the reality of a declining economy by widespread distribution? In Liverpool and in Britain as a whole there is no way one can escape from the reality of finance.
I have nothing against the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ancram) who is on the Government Front Bench, but I find it strange that in a debate about housing policy generally there is no Minister here from the Department of the Environment. Whatever complaints I have had about DoE Ministers in the past, one thing I have never levelled against them is an unwillingness to debate housing issues. It is surprising and reprehensible that not one Minister from that Department is present in the Chamber.
I have one other point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which I hope you will pass to Mr. Speaker. We continually hear Conservative Back Benchers moaning that they are unable to speak in debates about housing policy. Mr. Speaker should be reminded that not one Conservative Back Bencher is in the Chamber to debate housing policy. That is scandalous.
I accept that there is a natural cycle to housing and that a problem arises if one section of housing is removed from that cycle. In my county of Yorkshire, people are canny

about sorting out their affairs. Young people are always told that the first thing to do is to make sure they have a roof over their heads, and that other priorities come after that. There is a general cycle which starts when a young couple are wed. If they are able to, they buy a small back-to-back two-bedroom house which can still be purchased in Leeds for around about £10,000. A family will be able to buy a through terrace house with four bedrooms, which would cost a little more. Then, if a man is doing well at his job and he has some money to spare for a mortgage he can buy a two or three-bedroom semi. Then, when the children have gone, the parents move back to the smaller house and look after themselves and cope without recourse to state financing. The problem is that if the first rung of that ladder is taken away—the small terraced house—the family cannot get on to the next tier. The escalator that carries those who are fortunate enough to get on it upwards and onwards fails to work when that first rung is taken out. That is what happened in so many of our cities. That first rung of the small terraced house has been taken away by demolition.
In that sense housing is a self-inflicted problem. The single homeless are particularly hit by the Government's policy, as are young couples looking for a first home and unable to afford to buy. A total of 250,000 households are registered on council waiting lists. Some 39,000 public sector homes were built in 1985 as compared to 163,000 with 1976. I want to concentrate on a particular local problem in Leeds which I believe to be a microcosm of the whole problem of defective housing that assails so many of our cities.
My constituents who live on the Raynville estate in west Leeds face a very bleak Christmas. They are trapped in unfit accommodation. Whether they rent or own their homes, they can neither get them repaired satisfactorily nor can they move elsewhere. Many of these dwellings have mould growing on the doors, they have cracks in the walls, and wallpaper that simply falls off because of the excessive clamp. Even the windows fall out of their frames. These are what are called Reema houses and they figure on the Government's Housing Defects Act list. But despite the recognition that the houses are defective, there is apparently no solution in prospect. The houses are perhaps worth around £17,000 on the market today, but the estimated cost of repairs well over £20,000. How ludicrous it is that to repair the houses costs more than their value. There is, therefore, hardly likely to be a great rush to repair them and to put them into a habitable state.
But if the council were to decide to cut its losses and to demolish all the dwellings, it would be impossible to rehouse the residents in west Leeds within a reasonable time. Some 800 people are left on the estate but there are only approximately 400 properties available for re-letting in a full year. There are other equally pressing demands on housing in the area. As yet there are no approved schemes for rectifying housing defects, although I gather the two schemes are under appraisal.
Nevertheless, there is every indication that any possible solution will cost more than the £20,000, which is the Government's latest figure for this type of property. The Housing Defects Act is right in spirit but it is desperately inadequate in practical resources. The local Liberal councillors and the city council have not washed their hands of the problem, and have set out to get a private builder who is interested in developing the site. Indeed, the Reema maisonettes were a particular problem and became


literally un-lettable despite the massive housing waiting list in that area. These blocks were demolished with a view to Wimpeys developing the whole site.
The original plan was to refurbish the property but this was changed two years ago in favour of complete redevelopment. To achieve this an urban development grant was applied for but has not as yet been agreed. My understanding was that the urban development grant procedure was specifically designed to speed up the process of negotiation between developers and the local council. Clearly, this has not happened in this case. I hope that the Minister understands that I believe there is a clear duty on the Government to explain why it has not happened. Does the Minister realise that the Housing Defects Act plays an unfortunate role in relation to the Government's right to buy legislation? Leeds city council is forced to sell what it knows to be defective properties to people whom it knows cannot cope with the huge repair costs. The council inevitably has to buy back the houses because the Government's Housing Defects Act does not cover the maintenance cost for people in this position. I hope the Government will understand the need to deal with this anomaly sympathetically.
We are not talking about old dwellings. The ones in this case date only from the 1960s, but they are riddled with serious construction defects. For instance, the metal bars that are driven through the four corners of the houses are corroding and are carbonating into the concrete. The city council is fond of calling the structural cracks "thermal movement", but they show no signs of closing. It is no wonder that residents are worried. Inevitably, while people are still living in those houses, there are excessive housing costs. An official from the city council's works department admitted openly at a public meeting that Reema houses are especially badly insulated.
As I said in a debate on 24 July this year, the tenants in the multi-storey flats were told not to use their balconies. The balconies are now said to be safe, but tenants are still advised not to use them. As one tenant said, "If the balcony will not stand my eight and a half stones, should we not be moved out immediately?" It is ridiculous to tell people not to use their balconies but also to tell them that the flats are safe. Good, decent Yorkshire folk, tenants as much as owner-occupiers, are desperate for help, yet no help is forthcoming.
The residents have been forthright and resourceful in their campaigning. They have gathered information and lobbied effectively, but the final decisions are out of their hands. My local colleague, Councillor Selby, has battled on in support of our constituents, but there is a growing thought abroad that the Labour council in Leeds is cynically punishing people on the Raynville estate for consistently voting Liberal. It is hard to prove such motivation, but it would be easy to demonstrate its inaccuracy—by allocating resources sufficient to renovate where possible and to demolish the properties where not.
I beg the Minister to realise the desperate position of those families. The site is a mess, with the remains of the maisonette blocks still visible and an expanse of vacant land crying out for sensitive redevelopment. I ask the Minister to tell the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction of the need to receive a delegation of the residents of the Raynville estate at an early date. The

solution will inevitably lie in a joint operation with building societies, private builders and the city council working together. I am doing my best to make that happen, as are the residents. I wonder whether the Minister is.

Mr. Peter Pike: I apologise to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) for having missed the first two or three minutes of his speech, but I was detained on urgent business in my constituency all day and have just driven 250 miles non-stop to try to speak in this debate, which is important. I regret that much of what I shall say in my short speech has been said before, but since I have been in the House the Government have done nothing to deal with the serious problems of housing. During the past three and a half years, housing has become worse than it was in 1983. Something must be done to tackle the problem.
My constituency is slightly different from many others in that it has a surplus of public and private sector housing. I must accept that there is only one reason for the surplus of housing—employment is not available in Burnley and people are leaving the town to seek it elsewhere. Recently published figures show that the population has declined by about 5,000 during the past five years, which accounts for the empty houses.
However, there is a waiting list for sheltered accommodation for the elderly in Burnley. Wherever I go, I discover that councils are unable to meet the full demand for such housing because the problem is growing and not enough resources are available. Whether the problem is solved by converting existing stock or by constructing purpose-built housing, the money must come from the housing investment programme. If the Government will not make available sufficient resources, councils will be unable to meet the demand for housing to which elderly people are entitled and which is a priority.
I urge the Government to consider introducing a more generous subsidy for improvement-for-sale schemes that are carried out by local authorities. Burnley has made representations on this score on several occasions but it has been unsuccessful in its attempts to persuade the Government to change their policy. The subsidy that is given to housing associations is more generous than that provided to local authorities, which is not acceptable.
In Burnley the cost of improving an old terraced house is more than the sum that the house will sell for, and with the existing subsidy there is a loss for the council. The price of property has been low traditionally in the Burnley area, and with surplus housing in both the public and private sectors the price must remain low. With the absence of demand, high prices cannot be obtained. If the council cannot afford to improve a terrace house, for example, and tries to sell it, because the Government's policy does not permit it to do so the house may well become derelict, causing the entire terrace subsequently to become derelict. The loss of one house in the Burnley area might be acceptable because of the housing surplus, but the loss of an entire terrace is not, especially where improvement grants have been provided for individual houses in the terrace. We all know that improvement grants are provided so that the life of a property can be extended, and if a house becomes derelict and the end result is dereliction throughout the terrace and demolition, public money that has been expended in the form of improvement grants will


have been wasted. Perhaps there should be variations in policy and grant in different areas to meet different circumstances.
Burnley hopes that the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction will visit the area, or alternatively receive a delegation, to discuss grants for improvements in the private sector. The policy which was introduced in October 1983 has become less satisfactory as time has passed. Applications have had to be frozen and since April 1984 Burnley, like many other councils, has been unable to accept applications for improvement and repair grants. It is able to deal only with mandatory grants. Assuming that no more applications are made, Burnley needs about £13 million to deal with the backlog. Burnley is not unique in that respect, and that is not acceptable. If the Government do not come forward with more money now, the cost to them could well be greater later, especially if there has to be slum clearance, demolition and rebuilding, which would be nonsensical.
Like many other councils, Burnley is unable to modernise its pre-war housing stock at anywhere near a quick enough rate. The turn of the century will be reached before Burnley's pre-war houses are all modernised, and that is not acceptable. The Government must come forward with more generous provision when the housing investment allocations are announced, and Government time should be found in this place to enable the allocations to be debated.
The hon. Member for Gordon referred to capital receipts. I strongly support the view that, as an immediate step, the Government should increase the amount of capital receipts. I do not say that all of the capital should be used, but it certainly should be increased from the present level of 20 per cent. to at least 50 per cent. That will give local authorities a little more leeway with which to deal with their problems.
Housing is one of the most crucial issues that face the country. We have not seen an improvement in our housing stock. We have not even seen the maintenance of the status quo. We have seen the deterioration of housing throughout the country, whether it be in the public or private sector.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): indicated dissent.

Mr. Pike: The Minister shakes his head. It is a fact that we have seen a deterioration. It is a result of the Government's policy. Resources must be made available to tackle the problem before it is too late. I hope that the Government will think again on these important issues.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I do not know what the Secretary of State knows about the housing problems of Leeds, Liverpool and Burnley. I might be stretching a joke if I mention the housing situation in Cornwall. The debate is clearly about UK Housing. My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was asked over the phone what subject he wished to raise. The Secretary of State specifically was told that it was UK housing. I must now address the Secretary of State on problems that affect Cornwall, when the Minister represents a seat in Scotland. I do not complain about that, but when the hon. Gentleman's responsibility is specifically and only

Scotland, it verges on the ridiculous. For all that, people read Hansard, and one must live in faith and hope, even if one's experience does not always justify it.
The problem that my area faces is certainly different from those outlined by a number of hon. Members. It is interestingly different. In a way, it demonstrates one of the problems that inevitably face any Government who wish to evolve a sensible housing policy. We tend to talk too much about the national housing situation, as though every constituency is similar. That is manifestly not so. Certainly, my area has no excess housing capacity. It is beyond the imagination of local councillors and local housing executives to believe that there could be unoccupied council houses anywhere in the country, such is the pressure that exists within my community. When one examines the background of the matter, it is not surprising.
I do not know the precise figures, but I suspect that in Cornwall, less than 10 per cent. of the housing stock is owned by the local authority. It has never been much more than 15 per cent. Many houses have been sold. I have no complaint about that. The desirability of home ownership—at least in my part of the country—is not a controversial issue. All effective political parties in the community support it. For all that, just 10 per cent. of local housng is owned by the local authority. That percentage is too low to deal with the problem.
Statistically, Cornwall has the lowest average wage of any part of Great Britain. That fact is not new. It has been so this year, last year, last decade and the decade before that. Quite clearly, in the long run, a community's ability to house itself, is a reflection of its earning capacity. If the average wage in Cornwall is the lowest in the United Kingdom, a minority within our community must have incomes that are dramatically below the national average, to put it mildly. That section of our community has no choice but to look to the local authority for re-housing.
In my area, very few people are housed unless they specifically qualify under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. If somebody lives at home with his parents and children and cannot arrange for his parents to throw him out—when I say, "Throw him out," the parents actually have to take their own children to court to throw them out of the house—his prospects of being housed are remote, if not much more than zero. If someone gets married, lives at home and does not have any children, his only hope is the pathetic one of simply waiting for his parents, by death or incapacity, to vacate the property and thus hand it over.
That is the situation. The only solution is to build some council houses. Quite a lot of money has been generated by the sale of council houses. We have few houses in any case. Therefore, we need some state investment in housing. I have had much correspondence recently with the Secretary of State for the Environment, asking him why Cornwall is left out of the 80 areas defined as stress areas in Britain. I am not claiming that we are one of the worst. It is possible that we are not. But I fail to believe that 80 areas in Britain are worse off than my county with regard to obtaining a house. I have written to the Minister. I asked for the facts and figures to back up that policy assertion. I have not yet received a reply. I fear that it may be difficult to put together an answer to the observations made. I fear that the Government will not do anything about it, but the problem is there. It is mounting, and


many ordinary Cornish folk find themselves leading a life that is little more than misery because of the housing problem.
There are some things that the Government could do if only one could get them to consider them. Not the least of the problems in my county is the disappearance of the rented sector. I suspect that it has disappeared from my area for a slightly different reason from that in many other areas. The reason is simply this. There is an alternative use for rented accommodation in my area that is extremely profitable. It has been made far more profitable by the Government. That is the letting of property by the week, fortnight or month dring the summer, known in Cornwall as summer lets. Through tax changes that the Government made in the past two or three Finance Bills, the Government have created the following incredible situation. If one owns a house and lets it on a permanent basis, and procures an income by that, one pays tax on that income. No one complains about that. If one lets that property casually by the week, fortnight or month and procures an income, one pays tax on that. No one complains about that. But the tax that one would pay on letting the property permanently is more than on letting it casually. That is unbelievable. There is no justice in it and no justification for it. My constituents who have properties to let are not fools. One can be hardly surprised if they choose the option that not only gives them vacant possession every year but procures the highest income after tax, because, after all, that is why most people go in for business, and that is the way to achieve success.
That process of letting properties by the week, fortnight or month should be considered as a business. I do not believe that it is an immoral business, but I believe it to be a business. It should be treated as a business with regard to rates, planning consent and so on. If that was done, we could at least bring that endless problem under control.
Let us not underestimate the size of the problem. In some parishes, 40 per cent. of the properties are let in that manner. Once some 40 per cent. of property in a parish is let in that way, the community has been destroyed. The chapel is used no longer because there is nobody there on Sundays during the winter months. The doctor finds that he has little business. The shops closed. The whole community becomes like a disorganised Butlin's holiday camp. There is little of the community spirit and village life that led it through so many decades and, indeed, centuries.
That problem needs attention. There is no way that any Government will ever restore any form of private rented sector in my community unless someone is willing to face up to the admitted peculiarities of the problem. I ask the Minister to pass those comments on to the English Secretary of State and to seek from him his observations.
I repeat the raw bones of the argument. Less than 10 per cent. of housing in Cornwall is local authority housing. We have the lowest average wages in Britain. It is manifestly obvious that people must look to the local authority because other houses just do not exist. The councils manage as best they can by the most vicious interpretation of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 that I suspect is made in this country. Many people therefore suffer great stress. The outlet of private letting which exists in some areas is virtually taken away in my community because properties are let by the week, fortnight or month during the summer season for the

owner's profit. The desperate situation for the minority who are affected deserves some Government attention and action.
We are not so municipalised in my area that we would argue that the council could solve the problems if it owned 80 per cent. of houses as opposed to the 65 per cent. it perhaps owns. In the short term, the only action that the Government are likely to take is to put Cornwall back on the map in respect of funds for housing associations. I look forward to receiving a letter from the Secretary of State explaining why the problem which I have outlined means that Cornwall is not included in one of the 80 stress areas, which seems to be the criterion determining whether an area receives any money.

Mr. John Maxton: I must confess to being in difficulty with this debate. Like the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, when I saw that the debate was in the name of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), I, too, assumed—obviously, wrongly—that it was on Scottish housing. Unfortunately, I do not have a bunch of advisers desperately passing me notes to reply to hon. Members' points. I hope that hon. Members will accept my apologies for not being able to reply in detail to their points, because I do not confess to having any great knowledge of English housing.
It is clear hon. Members' speeches, especially those of my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) and for Burnley (Mr. Pike), that they face many of the problems that we face in Scotland. In Scotland, 49 per cent. of housing is council housing, so the problems faced by councils are great. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadgreen, who, in his graphic description of Liverpool, related the housing crisis much more broadly. Unemployment and social deprivation create many housing problems, which are then made worse by unemployment and social deprivation.
I agree with the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) on one point. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Terlezki) referred to the fact that earlier only two Labour Members were present for the debate on defence policy and NATO. It is remarkable that there are no Conservative Back Benchers present to talk about housing. More people have been made redundant in the construction industry since 1979 than would be made unemployed as a result of even the wildest claims by Conservative Members about Labour's defence policy. Of course, to most of our constituents, the problems of dampness, high rents, of repairs not being done and of inadequate sheltered housing are of much greater importance than Conservative attacks on our defence policy.
I wish to limit my remarks to some of the Government's recent actions in Scottish housing policy. A recent Scottish Office press release was headed,
Big Cash Increases for Housing Announced".
The Government were proudly announcing their increases in capital allocation, yet when the true figures came out, they showed that the total cash for housing next year will increase by only 2 per cent.—well below the inflation rate. The Minister shakes his head at that. He may care to look at his own figures.
The Government have also cut the rate fund contribution limit from £69·8 million in 1986–87 to £43·7 million in 1987–88, compared with their own figure of


£112·4 million in 1983–84. Housing support grant next year will be £46·5 million compared with £50·7 million this time last year, although there is to be a variation order to cut this year's figure to £44·5 million. As a result, tenants of only 25 out of the 54 housing authorities in Scotland will receive any subsidy on their rents and two thirds of the total housing stock in Scotland will receive no grant at all in the coming year. Those restrictions mean that only 12 per cent. of council house costs will come from the public purse and 88 per cent. will come from the tenants in rents and other charges. In 1979–80 rents covered only 47 per cent. of council house costs while Government grant accounted for 53 per cent.
At the same time, almost inevitably, rents have increased. If the Government have their way the average rent increase next year will be £1·32 and some council tenants will face increases of more than £3. Even the average increase is more than 10 per cent. or more than three times the present rate of inflation, and since 1979 average rents in Scotland will have increased by 191 per cent. or double the rate inflation. How any Government can justify loading those costs on to tenants, I do not know.
Meanwhile, the Government have done nothing to reduce the subsidy paid even to the wealthiest home owners through mortgage tax relief. We are not in favour of abolishing mortgage tax relief completely at the present time, but we believe that it should be for standard rate taxpayers only and not for the wealthiest people in our society. It is certainly grossly unfair for the Government to increase subsidies to the better off members of the community while constantly cutting those available to council house tenants, many of whom are among the poorest people in our society.

Mr. Penhaligon: The hon. Gentleman says that it is Labour party policy to abandon mortgage tax relief for those paying tax above standard rate. I think that he has made a mistake. Is not Labour policy to limit the relief to the standard rate? I am always willing to help.

Mr. Maxton: And I am always willing to accept help from wherever it comes.
On top of all that, the Government are now seeking to shift the burden of local taxation from the wealthy home owner to the council house tenant through the change from rates to a poll tax. Home owners in my constituency whose houses are valued at £70,000 or £80,000 and who obtain tax relief on the maximum figure of £30,000 are currently obtaining a subsidy of more than £1,000 per year in tax relief. They pay some £1,250 to £1,300 a year in rates. A married couple—a standard household in Scotland—would pay about £550 a year in poll tax. With tax relief, they will be subsidised to the tune of £460 a year and will not contribute to local services. Council house tenants, however, who receive no subsidy or tax relief pay £370 in rates now and will pay the same £550 in poll tax. Nobody in his right mind can consider that fair or just.
I have given only a bare outline. The Government claim that they have done much for housing in Scotland, and yet there are 63,000 houses below the tolerable standard. In Glasgow alone, 21,000 private sector houses are below the tolerable standard. Some 22,000 council houses may also be below the tolerable standard. Some 350,000 houses need full or partial mondernisation, 107,000 council

houses need rewiring and 308,000 council houses suffer from some form of dampness. Scotland requires about 251,000 houses for single people, but we have only 129,000.
We have greater overcrowding in Scotland than in any other part of the United Kingdom. There are 155,000 people on local authority waiting lists. We have a major housing crisis which the Government have done nothing to solve. They have tried to make propaganda out of the increase in this year's capital allocation, but the fact remains that, since the Government came to power in 1979, Government housing expenditure on Scotland has been halved. We require a Government who are committed to solving the housing crisis and who are prepared to use houses as one of the ways in which to get people back to work. The sooner that happens, the better it will be for the country.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I intended to start in a humble fashion and to apologise to English Members for not being able to answer their detailed questions. Having listened to what they said, however, I must say that I was somewhat surprised that the party that claims that it is decentralist and the party of devolution has not appreciated that we have a separate housing policy in Scotland. There is no Minister who is responsible for housing in Scotland and in England, other than the Prime Minister, and I am sure that Opposition Members would not have expected her to be here tonight.
Despite the fact that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) told me that he would be ranging wide, I assumed that he would speak basically on behalf of his constituents and that his interest would therefore be largely Scottish. I assure the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowroft), who I know feels strongly about the matter that he raised—I have heard him on that topic at a rather greater distance before—the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who also has raised these matters before, and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) that I shall pass on their comments to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction. I am sure that he will note what they have said.
Tonight we have heard several Liberal speeches and, indeed, it was a Liberal-inspired debate, but, as usual, we have heard little about Liberal policy. We heard many bland assertions from the hon. Member for Gordon, but we heard no details or answers. We were not told where the money would come from or how much the policies would cost. We were given no inkling of the hon. Gentleman's policy on the right to buy. At least I know what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) feels about that. Despite his party's fudging of the issue, he is clearly against it. On many previous occasions the hon. Member for Gordon has made it clear that, while he accepts the principle, he is against the practice. I hoped that tonight we would hear some explanation of what I understand to be the alliance policy which is that it would like increased local discretion over exemptions and discounts. I wanted to hear what the alliance believes is the correct level of discount, what exceptions should be made and to what extent there should be local discretion. Unfortunately, tonight I was again disappointed.
Equally, I hoped to hear the alliance say something about mortgage interest tax relief, which is of interest to many of my constituents.

Mr. Penhaligon: rose—

Mr. Ancram: If I set the question, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will then answer it.
I recollect that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who is the Liberal housing spokesman, pointed Out:
The Liberal party voted against increasing from £25,000 to £30,000 the limit at which mortgage tax relief is available. Under the housing and tax credit system which we would use to replace the tax and benefits systems, that tax relief would go—[Official Report, 11 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 954–5.]
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say whether or not that is Liberal policy.

Mr. Penhaligon: The Minister knows that our policy on this is exactly the same as the Labour party policy. We shall restrict tax relief to the standard rate. How he can defend giving someone on £40,000 a year twice as much tax help with his mortgage as someone on £14,000 a year, I do not know. That is the record he must defend. If he would like to outline that to us in the remaining eight minutes—clearly he is not going to reply to any of the points raised—at least the House will gain something of interest.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for informing the House that the remarks of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, who I understood to be a Liberal environment spokesman, were not correct.
First, I shall deal with the question of rents which was raised by the hon. Member for Cathcart. He knows full well, and his English colleagues may be interested to learn, that Scottish council house rents are three quarters of the level of English and Welsh council house rents, despite the fact that the average manual worker's wage is basically on a par. The hon. Gentleman knows that in Scotland we have a tradition of low rents created by subsidies which matched low wages. Since then Scottish wages have caught up with those south of the border, yet the Labour party expect, not subsidies to those who need them, but indiscriminate subsidies through housing support grant and rate fund contributions to be given to all council tenants.
The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Government have been forcing up rents in Scotland. I wonder whether he noticed my answer to a question from the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) on 3 December who asked what the average level of local authority rents and fair rents registered for unfurnished lettings in Scotland was compared with the rate of inflation. The figures shows that between 1979 and 1985 local authority rents in Scotland rose by 134 per cent. Registered rents, which have nothing to do with the Government and are set by rent registration officers, rose by 174 per cent. That shows that in Scotland rents have been at an unnaturally low level and now they are beginning to move towards the level at which they should be.
The basic attack made against the Government by the hon. Members for Gordon and for Cathcart, on a Scottish basis, was directed at resources. I found it difficult to listen to the hon. Member for Liverpool Broadgreen (Mr.

Fields), who suggested that this Government have slashed investment in housing. Since we came to office, we have—and I can give only the Scottish figures for this—increased annual capital investment in Scotland's housing stock by £383 million in cash terms and by 5 per cent. in real terms—

Mr. Terry Fields: What good is that to us in Liverpool?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman laughs. May I remind him that when the Labour party was in office—and this matters to the people in Scotland—annual investment in real terms on the same basis fell by 37 per cent. I find it difficult to accept suggestions from the hon. Gentleman that we have cut investment in Scottish housing and that his party has a better record.
The hon. Member for Gordon accused the Government of what he described as bad housekeeping. I should like to explain to him some of the housekeeping in terms of looking after Scotland's housing that has been carried on by the Government. Since 1979, 140,000 new houses have been built. The number is presently running at a rate of 18,000 a year. That is a total increase in the stock of 3·5 per cent. at a time when the Scottish population was falling. The number of sheltered dwellings—a matter that was raised by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) admittedly in an English context but it is equally important in Scotland—under this Government has trebled to more than 21,500 and the number of amenity dwellings has more than trebled to more than 8,500.

Mr. Maxton: rose—

Mr. Ancram: I shall not give way as I have not much time left.
The hon. Member for Gordon made a number of other assertions about the public sector. Capital allocations to Scottish local authorities have increased by almost 60 per cent., or £135 million, over the past three years. More local authority dwellings were improved last year—45,000—than in any of the previous 10 years. More than 210,000 local authority dwellings—about a quarter of the stock—have been included in modernisation schemes costing about £1 billion since the Government came to office.
The hon. Member for Gordon and others also referred to the private sector. In Scotland, 86,000 tenants have been able to buy their own homes under the Government. The number of applications at present is more buoyant than it has been for a number of years. The proportion of families owning their own homes has risen from 35 per cent. to more than 41 per cent. Under this Government, more than 10 times the resources have been made available for improvement and repair grants, about which the hon. Member for Gordon criticised the Government, than during 1974–79 when the Labour party was in office. When the Labour party was in office, £55 million was made available in that area against £550 million under this Government. In the two years from 1982 to 1984, the maximum rate for repair grant was boosted from 50 per cent. to 90 per cent. and the transformation of the private stock in cities such as Glasgow is visible for all to see.
As a result, the number of below tolerable standard houses in Scotland was more than halved to 57,000 last March.
This year, when the hon. Member for Cathcart proclaimed that there would be reductions again in housing investment in Scotland, we have managed in the


public sector allocations of £40 million—that is 12 per cent. more than last year and well above the rate of inflation. On the private side—the non-HRA—we have increased provision by £28·5 million, which is 24 per cent. more than last year.
The hon. Member for Gordon rightly mentioned the housing associations. The Housing Corporation has been funded this year for next year at its highest ever level of £123·4 million pounds and that has been welcomed by the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations.
It is clear that the attack that has been made on the Government's housing policy in Scotland is not well based. Our record is good, and the people of Scotland will judge it to be so.

Orders of the Day — Crime Prevention

Mr. Don Dixon: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise this important subject in the wake of relentlessly rising crime and after seven years of failed Government promises on law and order. In 1979, the Tory Government were elected mainly on a law and order ticket. We heard talk about short, sharp sentences. Again in 1983, law and order was a main issue in the Tory manifesto, yet today, seven years later, many thousands in Britain endure the fear of crime—the knock on the door they are frightened to answer, the journey in the dark they are afraid to undertake and streets where they are afraid to let their children play. That is the position today, after seven years of rule by the self-professed law and order party.
To dramatise that more effectively, if the debate takes its full one and a half hours, during that time 24 people will have been victims of violent crime, 114 people will have suffered criminal damage, 180 people will have been burgled, 384 people will have suffered a theft and 744 people will have been victims of some kind of crime. That is the extent to which crime has risen during the past seven years.
Over the years there has been a tendency to trivialise the description of crime and, as a result, some people do not take it so seriously. Mugging, for example, is purely and simply robbery with violence. When I went to school, someone who was mugged was conned. That is a completely different meaning. Old-age pensioners are beaten up for a few coppers. Break-ins to rob gas meters, especially the pre-paid meters that people on low incomes invariably request from the gas board, are prevalent in the area that I represent. As the gas meters are placed near the front door, they are easy targets. If anyone was to stop somebody from smashing into the gas meters, he would be beaten up, as many are.
I heard a case on Saturday in my surgery. Somebody told me that their gas meter had twice been broken into. With it getting near Christmas, they were concerned that the meter was getting full so they contacted the gas board and asked them to have the meter emptied. The gas inspector came along and emptied the meter. Because there was less than £150 in the meter they were charged £13 by the Gas Board when in fact they were looking after the gas board's money. That is what is happening to people on low incomes who have to have pre-paid meters because of their financial position.
When I talk to the people at my surgeries and go around old people's accommodation and talk to old people's organisations they always tell me that they want to see more policemen on the beat, on the estates and in the shopping centre. They tell me that they want to see the same number of uniforms on the estates and shopping centre as they invariably see on the picket lines on the television news. When I was a youngster in Jarrow, I can recall watching the policemen leaving the police station and marching to the various beats and staying there. They were always present and people felt much safer. When I was leader of the council in Jarrow we had a policy of always building six or eight police houses on every council estate so that some police were living in the community with the people on the council estates. Now, because the police are financially better off and buying their own houses, the special police houses are being sold off, so we


do not have the police presence on the estates. How on earth can a relationship between the police and the local community be developed if the police no longer live among the people whom they are supposed to protect?
It would be simple to say that the sole cause of crime is unemployment, but to do so would be to cast a slur on every unemployed person. However, unemployment leads to monotony and frustration because of low incomes. That leads to solvent sniffing by many young people and in some cases to drug taking and violent crime. South Tyneside is an area of exceptionally high unemployment; it has the highest level of unemployment in mainland Britain. Solvent sniffing there is prevalent, as is drug taking.
The South Tyneside council has tried to combat solvent abuse and drug taking. The director of social services, Colin Smart, has worked hard to tackle this ever-increasing problem, but the council requires additional Government support. The social services department's resources are used to provide part III accommodation, home helps, assistance to the mentally handicapped and all the other services that it renders to the community. It does not have additional resources with which to combat the drug abuse that is prevalent in the area.
The local authority also requires additional finance to provide more lighting on estates, but the amount of money that it has to spend is restricted. South Tyneside's rate support grant is now approximately £9 million less than the amount it enjoyed when this Government were elected. Consequently, many of our streets are inadequately lighted.
South Tyneside has just begun a central communications scheme. Eventually it will cover every old age pensioner who lives in the south Tyneside area. When it is fully operational every old age pensioner will be covered by a warden system. If pensioners are taken ill during the day or the night a warden will go to see them, if they contact the central communications system, or it will arrange for a doctor to call.
I am told that the system could also provide all old age pensioners with a burglar alarm. The Government could help the council to provide such a system; its resources are insufficient, without Government help. If all old-age pensioners in south Tyneside were able to go to bed at night knowing that if they were taken ill a doctor would call if they contacted the central communications system, or that if there were an intruder they could use their burglar alarm, it would be a great relief to them.
There are great financial pressures on the Government regarding the police services, but I draw to the Minister's attention another matter that would help to prevent crime. Because of the soaring crime rate, private security firms are in great demand. They are one of the fastest growing industries in this country today. Many hundreds of small firms are being set up, and they ought to provide decent training and working conditions for their employees.
I declare an interest as a Member sponsored by the General, Municipal Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union. The GMBATU is very much involved in the industry and it has tried to obtain decent training and working conditions for employees. Most of the firms are in the guard and patrol sector. Given the ease with which firms can be set up, standards vary considerably. As

virtually no restrictions are placed on the firms that enter the industry, the cut-throat competition from cowboy firms is having a severe impact.
Yet again, as in most walks of life, it is the workers who are affected. Earnings in the security industry are particularly low. Official figures from the Department of the Employment's new earnings survey show that many employees rely upon overtime to boost earnings. The average working week for all workers in this country is 42 hours, yet in the security industry it is 49 hours. Even though they work long hours, during the day and night, many firms expect their employees to rely solely on basic pay. This policy by some companies leads to a high turnover in labour, but because of the lengthy dole queues there is always someone to take their place.
The hours in the security industry are tortuous. It is not uncommon for a guard to put in 60 hours a week—indeed, some work much longer hours, because of the poor wage rates and the dependence on overtime. Of the 18 major companies in the security industry, more than one third do not pay any overtime premium. The overtime work in these firms is well beyond what in other industries would warrant premium payments.
Among firms that pay overtime premiums, time and a half is the highest. Extra premiums are not paid even for Sunday work. Although shift work is universal, only a minority of firms pay shift allowance. Of the top 18 companies, ten do not pay any shift allowance. Some pay only a paltry allowance, and one pays only 15p an hour. Yet in most industries where night shift is worked, anything up to time and a third is paid.
I am sure that some hon. Members are under the illusion that the security industry provides a well-trained service. This may be true for some firms, but sadly, in many, training is deficient and they rely totally on drill and discipline. Training is important as it helps to promote a professional image as well as bringing the benefits of good practice. Only half the major firms in this country provide formal training. Of the others, the length of training is variable, ranging from as little as five hours to up to four days. In some of the cowboy firms it is not unusual for a new man to be placed on a night site and left unsupervised for long periods.
Crime prevention is a partnership between central Government, local government, the police force and the community. People have the right to demand to live safely in their homes and communities. It is no good the Government telling the people of this country that they will safeguard the people of the Falkland Islands, 8,000 miles away, when they cannot even safeguard our citizens within a radius of five miles of where we are tonight debating crime in Britain.
We need a well-resourced programme to prevent crime and reduce the fear of it in our communities. We need crime prevention grants for home owners and tenants to create safer homes, better street lighting, and a more reliable public transport service. Through deregulation, people will receive a poorer public transport system, which will put more of them at risk when they try to get from or to their homes. The police should be brought nearer to the communities.
I have already given the Minister instances where the Government could help my local authority with additional resources to combat solvent and drug abuse. Additional resources would allow the local authority to put more street lighting on the estates, and to extend the central


communications system so that every pensioner in the borough of South Tyneside could have a burglar alarm system as well as warden coverage in case they were ill.
We need most of all—most people tell me this wherever I go—more policemen on the beat. We do not want policemen sitting in police cars at the side of highways. People want to see policemen patrolling the streets on the estates and in the shopping centres where many crimes are committed. If the Government can give resources to the areas which have these problems, I have no doubt that many people will rest safer in their beds at night, be safer on their estates and have safer living conditions.

Mr. Clive Soley: My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) is right to point out the Government's appalling record on crime. They were, as he rightly says, elected in 1979 on a "get tough" policy. If I had told people at that time that within seven short years we would have the fastest rising crime rate ever in certain key areas of crime, particularly theft, burglary and robbery; that we would have more people in prison than any country in western Europe; that we would have more young people locked up than any other comparable country; and that we would have police in riot gear with riots in our inner cities, in country areas in relation to industrial disputes and in our prisons, people would have said that I was exaggerating. Sadly, that has come true.
The debate is about Government measures to combat crime. I could easily take up more than an hour and a half describing precisely how the Government have made a bad situation worse and created the conditions which increase crime. The Government are more culpable than any other Government I have known, either Tory or Labour. I shall give a few examples that fit in, very appropriately, with the comments made by my hon. Friend a few moments ago.
I have said before that one of the things that the Government have done which will feed the crime rate considerably is to introduce a board and lodging allowance, particularly for young people. In effect, that pushes more and more young people into homelessness and drug and alcohol abuse. All three of those key areas have a link with crime. If that measure alone were to be withdrawn and changed it would at least slow down the rise in crime in certain areas.
My hon. Friend referred to the link between unemployment and crime. It is right that there is no statistical link between crime and unemployment, although there is a clear link between unemployment and imprisonment. But there is clearly a link and it is important to understand the way in which that link works. It means that if a person is just about coping with the demands of society, and the pressure is then increased, social, psychological or economic, that person is more likely to be tipped over the brink into other problems. Those other problems can cover a range of areas, physical and mental ill-health included, but they may also include crime.
Although there is no direct statistical link, there is now growing evidence that there is a link between youth unemployment, particularly long-term youth unemployment, and crime. Certainly I would expect a link between long-term youth unemployment and outbreaks of disorder. In some of the areas where we have had outbreaks of disorder, such as Broadwater Farm, there are

high levels of youth unemployment. I believe that I am right in saying that in Broadwater Farm it was close to 40 per cent. In some areas in my constituency it is around 25 per cent.
Such levels of unemployment will clearly be a problem for the police, who will feel that there are difficulties with groups of young people hanging around the street corners during the day and night. That also, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, creates a level of fear among the rest of the population, particularly elderly people who are sometimes unsure and frightened about how to cope with groups of youngsters being rowdy or noisy during the day or at night.
But the housing issue is critical to all that. A few moments ago when I came in at the tail end of the previous debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was saying that the Government had spent more on housing renovation and repair. What he did not say, of course, is that at the same time that Government spending has increased there have been massive cuts for local authorities so that they are not only no longer able to build but are also unable to do the renovation and repair.
One might ask what the link is with crime there. There is a clear and important link. First, there are people in inappropriate housing. I can think of cases in my constituency which much be multiplied around the country. On the Edward Woods estate there are high rise blocks housing families with young children. The children either have to play indoors all day with the parent or parents, with the consequent rise in family tensions, or, frequently and more commonly, they play outside unsupervised. In such circumstances it is not unusual for them to drift into vandalism, graffiti and crime. The area begins to run down, and as the local authority cuts bite even deeper, it deteriorates and not only does the fear of crime increase, but crime increases as well.
In that same estate, the Edward Woods estate in my constituency, I can point to examples such as those that my hon. Friend was thinking about in his area. In blocks of flats, entryphones and things like that have been put on the doors and even entry cards have been given to residents. Those things have proved quite useless, because in a matter of weeks, and sometimes in a shorter period, those entry systems have been broken, the whole of the inside ground floor vandalised, and the walls covered in graffiti. The only way to deal with things like that is to have a 24-hour porterage, but that cannot be done in the face of the cuts that the Government have imposed on housing.
I know that the Minister will be unable to tell us that the Government will allow local authorities to spend the money that they have taken in from the sale of houses. If he cannot tell the House that, at least he should tell his hon. Friend in the Department of the Environment that, if the Government would let local authorities spend that money, at least some of it could be used to provide services in high crime areas to reverse the trend that the Government have set in train.
In recent years crime would have presented any Government with a problem. That crime is not the result of moral degeneracy or because the British are more wicked or dishonest or violent than the people of other nations, but simply because of the movement of population, as people moved out of the cities and back into the country, reversing a trend that was going on for a couple of hundred years. In our inner cities that has


produced people who, at one level, are rich and can afford the housing there, the so-called yuppies—the upwardly mobile professionals who can afford to buy flats or houses and then move on after about five or 10 years in the city, leaving behind a group of people trapped in the housing, not just in the inner cities, which are the most obvious examples, but in other run-down areas as well. Those people become trapped and the problems accumulate.
When one talks to employers in inner cities one finds that it is not rates that drive them out. We know that from Government and university studies, from common sense and from talking to people. The issue that drives out the employers is that they cannot get skilled labour. As a result, the inner city trap goes from bad to worse and as that happens the areas become run down and vandalised and the fear and the reality of crime become worse.
There is only one solution and it is long-term. It was applied by previous Governments, including some previous Conservative Governments, but this Government are guilty to an incredible degree of pushing up crime until it is almost out of control. The situation is desperate and the Government have used the police to cope with the social and economic consequences of their other policies. The only way to reverse this trend is to have a wellresourced crime prevention and victim support policy, and economic policies designed to improve the run-down areas, such as the inner cities. If we do that, many of the problems that my hon. Friend so rightly drew to the attention of the House could begin to be reversed and we might get back to the sort of policing and the sort of society that we had before the Government took office, at which time the problem was serious but not as desperate as it is now.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The one party that is quite unfit to criticise the Government's policy on law and order is the Labour party, because its record on these matters is atrocious. The policies and the nature of the Labour party have done more than anything else to lay the foundations for disorder and crime in Britain.
Let us consider the reasons for this. First, there is the policy of individual members of the Labour party. Far too many of them are profoundly hostile to the police and take every kind of opportunity to express that hostility. I am excluding, and do not make this charge against the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). It is not true of him, but it is true of Bernie Grant, Mr. Knight, Mr. Hatton and local authorities dominated by the Labour party throughout this country—not all of them, but many of them. They are hostile to and critical of the police and undermine their activities. If one asks Metropolitan police officers why it is that we experience a wastage of police officers in London, one of the frequently expressed reasons is that they suffer from lack of morale. When one presses them on the lack of morale, they say it is because of the way they are treated and spoken to by Labour authorities and those whom the hon. Member represents.

Mr. Dixon: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I will not give way for the moment.
Let us go back to the middle or late 1970s. What happened then, when the Labour party was in

Government? I will tell hon. Members. The police were ill-paid and deserting in droves. We had never seen the Metropolitan police at a lower stage of morale. We now have the absurd spectacle of those who presided over such an event parading themselves as the party of law and order. Then consider their attitude to legislation. Quite frequently, indeed usually, the Labour party opposes those pieces of legislation that might enhance the ability of the police to respond to the problems we have heard desribed. Take the example of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, an important Act.

Mr. Dixon: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I will not give way for the moment.

Mr. Dixon: rose—

Mr. Hogg: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Dixon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I opened this debate I spoke primarily about the problem in the area I represent. There are no Bernie Grants or the people that the Minister has been referring to in the area I represent. There are no local authorities or people on them who attack the police, as the Minister suggests. I ask the Minister to start replying to the debate that I initiated and talk about the problems I have outlined that obtain in the area that I represent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): This is an intervention and not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Hogg: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman does not like taking the medicine. The hon. Gentleman will have to take it. He can either take it or leave the Chamber, I do not mind which. I shall tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a few facts of life about the Labour party and hon. Members had better bear it in silence or leave the Chamber. They can make a fuss if they like but they will have to put up with it.
It is interesting to note how frequently the Labour party undermined those pieces of legislation that enhance the powers of the police to deal with crime. We were dealing with the Prevention of Terrorism Act before the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) rose to his feet in an embarrassed state. It is remarkable that here, the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which is generally regarded as an important piece of statute law designed to prevent terrorism, should be repeatedly opposed by the Labour party. It is a disgraceful spectacle. Or consider the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which went through 59 sittings in Committee. The Labour party spent much time in unconstructive debate designed to undermine the powers of the police which they need so very much. Then we had the little matter of example. Go back to Grunwick, or go now to Wapping, or go to the miners' strike. These were all deplorable spectacles of violence and abuse. Who supported them? Who was on the picket lines? Who, by their actions, assisted those who rioted and abused the police? Members of the Labour party. There they were, on the picket lines, rioting and abusing the police and sometimes, indeed, being arrested. Are we to believe that they were in some way friends of the police? It is preposterous.
Let us consider a much more fundamental matter. What is the Labour party's attitude to society? For far too long, the Labour party has preached the message of entitlement and has forgotten the message of obligation. It believes that people owe no obligation to their


neighbours or to society. For 20 years or more, Labour Members have sought to undermine the moral basis of society, and then they complain when the result is crime and lawlessness. The truth, unpleasant though it may be for the Labour party, is that consistently and persistently—certainly for as long as I have been actively engaged in politics—the Labour party has created the circumstances that have given rise to the present problems. They are the paramount cause. Labour Members do not like it; they protest. I am not surprised that they do not like it, but they will have to learn a few lessons.
The hon. Member for Jarrow wanted me to come to his speech. I shall do so, although I must say that it was not a helpful contribution. I listened to it carefully—perhaps I was kinder than I should have been. It did not address itself to any of the major issues. Much more to the point, it did not endeavour to give any solutions to the problems.

Mr. Dixon: It did.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman says that it did. We shall both read the record tomorrow and we shall see who is right.
The first thing that we must understand is that the increase in crime is international and prolonged. It is international in the sense that we are experiencing the problems that are being experienced in almost every developed country, although much less in kind than, for example, in the United States. The trend has existed since the 1950s. The crime rate increased by between 5 per cent. and 7 per cent. in the 1980s, which was very similar to the increase in the 1950s. Between 1974 and 1979, violent crime increased by 49 per cent. Between 1979 and 1985, it increased by 28 per cent. I do not make a point of this, but I merely emphasise that the present position is consistent with what we have seen for many years past. To suggest that it is attributable to the Conservative Government is preposterous.
The hon. Member for Jarrow talked about fear and risk. Although there is fear, the risk is very slight. The hon. Gentleman would do much better to reassure his constituents and to take some time to explain to them that the Government have introduced a broadly based coherent policy—the first such policy since the war. Although the Labour party may not wish me to do so, I shall develop the five main elements of our policies. First, we are taking positive action on crime prevention, for which the hon. Member called, although he did not cite examples of what we should do. Secondly, we are increasing the resources of the police. I shall mention that at length, because the hon. Gentleman is very interested in it. Thirdly, we are strengthening the powers of the police and the courts while maintaining the safeguards for individuals. My experience of the Labour party is that it has always been anxious to resist any attempts to extend the powers of the police and the courts. Fourthly, we are seeking to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of all parts of the criminal justice system, an objective which the Labour party spends a great deal of time seeking to frustrate. Fifthly, we are seeking to provide a more effective support system and reassurance for victims of crime.
The first element is police manpower and police finance—

Mr. Soley: Is that the first one?

Mr. Hogg: I shall take the elements in the order which I think appropriate, and the hon. Gentleman will have to bear with me. I shall start with the police. Since 1979, we have increased the manpower that is available to the police service, inclusive of civilians, by about 15,000 men. Since 1979, spending in real terms has increased by about 38 per cent.

Mr. Soley: That makes no difference.

Mr. Hogg: That is another aspect of Labour party policy. It seems that it does not want us to increase police numbers and spending on the police. I am glad to know that. I say to the hon. Gentleman that increasing police manpower and spending on the police make a difference, and that the Government are proud to have a record of increasing spending on the police and increasing the numbers of police officers. I am sorry that we do not have the support of the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Soley: Why is it that the police accept my view that increasing spending on the police makes little odds? They say that throwing police officers at the problem will not solve it and that they need other measures to be taken. Five points are being put to the House, four of which are entirely irrelevant to the prevention of crime, which is what my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) was talking about, while one is an empty gesture. The Minister is really saying that people should be told not to worry about crime, even though they are worried, because the Government cannot do anything about it, are not prepared to do anything about it and want to blame crime on the Opposition. It is a unique experience for a Government to blame their policies on the Opposition.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting intervention. He is saying to the House that he does not believe that increased police resources make any difference. If he takes that view, I presume that it will become part of Labour party policy, if it is not already, to cut the number of police. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that increased police resources make no difference, I assume that he would adopt such a policy. If that is not the position, he is talking even more nonsense than he customarily does.
We have had an interesting revelation this evening, and that is the reluctance on the part of the Labour party to embark on the policy of increasing police resources. The Conservative party does not take the same approach. The Government are embarking on a consistent and persistent policy of expanding police numbers and the resourcees didicated to the police service. I hope that we would have the support of the Labour party, but that seems not to be forthcoming.
Secondly, we are determined that we should be in a position to fund the increases to which I have referred. I heard no recognition from the Opposition Benches of the Conservative Government's fine record of funding the police service. I have talked about the real increases which have been achieved. Let us consider the policy changes which have been made. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith knows, we have increased the specific police grant. Thus, central Government contribute yet more to the cost of funding the police service. When we consider the method of funding the police service through the rate support grant, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we have made adjustments of the greatest importance,


For example, grant-related expenditure assessments are now related to establishments. I hope that we have the hon. Gentleman's support for that great development.

Mr. Soley: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hogg: We do not have the hon. Gentleman's support. I am sorry about that, but that is another example of the Labour party not being willing to accept and support constructive measures that will take us forward. At the same time, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there will be incorporated in the settlement a realistic assessment of police pay. Again, that is a valuable step forward. The hon. Gentleman will know of the concept of the unallocated margin and that police spending is exempt from it. In all these respects the Conservative Government are showing positively that they place great emphasis on practical ways of funding increases in police resources and not merely in the conceptual idea of expanding the police service. I am sorry that, in these matters we do not have the support of the Labour party.

Mr. Soley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hogg: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman at least once. I am sorry, but he will have to wait just a little longer. We have concentrated very substantially on the enforcement and reinforcement of the resources dedicated to the police. At the same time, the Government recognise—I accept that the hon. Member for Jarrow also made this point—that crime prevention is of great importance.

Mr. Soley: I wish to ask the Minister a simple question to elucidate his argument. Twenty years ago, there was one police officer to every 603 citizens. Today, there is one police officer to every 390 citizens. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the crime rate has gone up dramatically. The police tell me that that statistic is largely irrelevant to the prevention of crime and might, in some ways, actually lead to an increase. What will the Minister do? Will he further increase the population of police officers? At what stage will the hon. Gentleman stop? When one in two citizens are police officers? Is that his answer? If it is not, will he kindly address the question that was put to him about crime prevention, about which he said virtually nothing?

Mr. Hogg: I was about to refer to crime prevention, but I was interrupted. The hon. Gentleman has fouled his nest once, and he shows a remarkable desire to foul it again. It is quite plain from what he said earlier, and even plainer from his intervention, that he is unwilling to see the police service increased either in terms of numbers or resources. That is an astonishing performance for a Front Bench spokesman. [Interruption.] He says that he did not say it, but his argument is that it does not make any difference. If that is what he believes, I assume that he will act on it. If not, he is in a bizarre position. However, that does not surprise me.
As the hon. Member for Jarrow rightly said, crime prevention is an important part of our policy. I am grateful to him for his limited support. It is an important part of our policy for a number of reasons. Much crime is opportunistic. About 25 per cent. of burglaries, for example, do not involve forced entry. About 20 per cent. of cars, for example, are not locked. Therefore, there is a great liability on the part of the citizen simply by exercising

a little more care. The Government have adopted a high profile in the area of crime prevention. We are making crime prevention a very important aspect of our policy.

Mr. Soley: What are the Government doing?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman intervenes again. I do not in the least mind his intervening. He simply makes the point that we are the first Government to adopt a coherent crime prevention policy. That is not a policy that the party of which he is such a prominent member ever espoused when it was in office.
Let us now consider the main aspects of our crime prevention policy. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is the Standing Conference on Crime Prevention. The standing conference is a vehicle by which we set up standing committees and working parties to report on specific aspects of crime. As the hon. Gentleman would have noticed, last month we received the five working party reports on residential burglary, commercial robbery, shop theft and violence associated with licensed premises, and car security. These matters involve important recommendations, many of which are to be acted upon. We also commissioned three more working parties for next year to examine juvenile crime, child abuse and molestation, publicity, and young people and alcohol.
At the same time, we are working on new British standards on car locks and alarms, which arose from the Downing street seminars. The National Housebuilding Council has produced a guidance note to assist builders to produce more secure homes. Through the mechanism of the standing conference and the working parties, we are seeking to extract ideas and lessons to apply to crime prevention.
However, crime prevention is essentially a local activity if it is to be successful. I agree with the hon. Member for Jarrow that, if crime prevention is to be successful, it must be a partnership. It cannot be in a vacuum. It involves a partnership between the formal institutions of society—the police, and the local authorities—and individual citizens. There is no way that one can combat crime by using simply one part of that relationship. All of it must be involved if it is to be successful.
Again, the Conservative Government have achieved a considerable success. To start with, we have the neighbourhood watch schemes. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith will know, they commenced in 1982 with two schemes. There are now some 17,500. In the past 12 months, they have doubled in number. They are a positive way of tackling crime at the grass roots. People come up with projects, the relationship between the police and the community is improved, and the schemes are simply good for the environments where they are sited. They are an important aspect in crime prevention policy, as are the crime prevention panels, which are increasing in number and in importance as part of our deliberate approach.
The crime prevention panels are the catalyst that can stir and direct local action. They are organisations upon which we place great importance. The hon. Member for Hammersmith will know that we set up five project areas in England and Wales where schemes are being adopted and tried out for the combating of crime. We are seeking to learn from the projects and circulate that information to other neighbourhood watch schemes and crime prevention panels.
In essence, what we are seeking to do is unite the local community, and the local and formal institutions of


society, in a common war against crime. I should like to mention other aspects of our crime prevention policy, for example, publicity. I was pleased to be able to announce last month a virtual doubling in our budget allocated to publicity. Opposition Members will know about the Magpies campaign. Publicity is an effective way of raising alertness to and awareness of the issue of crime. It gives guidance and makes people more conscious of what can be done.
We also have the involvement of the community programme. The hon. Member for Hammersmith will know that about 6,000 places have been approved under the community prgramme, some of target hardening, to use the jargon. The hon. Member for Jarrow raised this point. We are improving lighting, layout and environment in estates—

Mr. Soley: The Government are not doing that.

Mr. Hogg: I was about to emphasise that we were doing that. For example, the urban programme is a vehicle by which we are using substantial sums of money for security on the estates. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hammersmith may not like those facts. I understand that they make him uncomfortable. None the less, they are facts that he would do well to observe.
Some £6.3 million was allocated under the urban programme in support of a wide range of programmes to prevent crime during the current year. For example, the urban housing renewal programme is also a vehicle to channel money in ways that are designed to reduce crime and improve security.
I could go on in a similar way. Let us see where we stand. Of course, crime is a problem. It is a problem of international dimensions, and it is of long standing. Recorded offences have been going up for a long time. The Government attach high importance to the matter. We have increased and are increasing the numbers and resources of the police service. I am sorry to learn that we do not enjoy the Labour party's support. At the same time, we have enhanced the powers of the courts and of the police. I am sorry to have to say that, in these respects, our policies have always been attacked by the Labour party. We have pursued a crime prevention policy which is coherent and funded in a way that no other Government at any other time have done. I am sorry that we did not even get grudging approval for that. In matters of crime prevention and in fighting the criminal, the Government have no apology to make.
I return to the point with which I began: the Labour party has a great deal for which to answer when we discuss the problm of lawlessness. Hon. Members from parties that stand on picket lines, riot, and abuse the police and encourage those who use violence, or at least do not condemn it, are in no position to talk in this place about lawlessness, when they are, at least in part, responsible for it.

Orders of the Day — Great Lines, Gillingham

Mr. James Couchman: I am delighted at this unholy hour in the morning to bring to the House a matter which I have tried three times previously to raise. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope)—a subject on which I had extensive correspondence with his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). This matter has fomented a storm in my constituency and has raised again an antipathy to the Government which has not been seen since the proposal by Sir John Nott in the 1981 defence review to close Chatham dockyard and royal naval base—a closure which precipitated high unemployment.
The matter which I raise concerns many of the people in my constituency—the proposed sale by the Property Services Agency, on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, of that piece of land known as the Great Lines, which lies between Chatham, Brompton and Gillingham. The Property Services Agency proposes to offer for sale on the open market some 38 acres of open space which is redundant to the Ministry of Defence and has been for many years. This land represents a valuable "green lung" to the people who live in the most densely developed part of my constituency. The streets adjacent to the Great Lines are made up largely of terrace houses, built during Victorian and Edwardian times and occupied largely by the people who worked in the dockyard or in the engineering businesses along the banks of the Medway. This part of my constituency closely resembles the densely packed, back-to-back houses and streets of many a northern city. The Great Lines have been the local park for all those people for many years and now the PSA proposes to sell the land in a way that gives little hope that it will remain available to them for recreation.
The Great Lines, moreover, are an historic open space, having been the lines of fire for the forts which guarded the dockyard, one of which has been magnificently restored by a trust aided by community programme workers. Although not covered with the ancient monuments that the historic dockyard a few hundred yards away has, the lines form an integral part of the 450-year history of these great garrison and naval-based towns. The Great Lines are very visible, forming the sky line above Chatham which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner), whom I am delighted to see here, although I must apologise for keeping her from her bed. I am pleased also to see my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). At the left-hand end of that skyline on the escarpment looking up over Chatham town hall is the evocative sight of the great naval war memorial to those sailors of the Nore Command who gave their lives in this nation's service.
I have had a lengthy correspondence with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton aimed at persuading him to offer the Great Lines to Gillingham borough council at open space value so that the council can preserve them as a public open space for the use of my constituents in this crowded corner of the Medway towns.
I have been much encouraged in my quest by many individuals and by every conceivable conservation group. Many hundreds of people have signed petitions—sadly, not in a form that might be acceptable to this House, but none the less sincere in the desire not to see development on the Great Lines. Above all, my efforts have been spurred by members of Gillingham borough council, which is the very model of a careful, thrifty council. This year it has constructed a budget which, with the assistance of a kindly rate support grant settlement, has enabled the borough council to levy a district council rate of 0p in the pound. Gillingham has never built up the kind of balances that would enable it to compete with property developers who might seek to buy the Great Lines on a hope value basis. The only realistic price that the council could pay would be open space value.
On 10 April this year, at my behest, the then junior defence Minister responsible for disinvesting the Great Lines, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), visited the area and saw the situation on the ground. He expressed a good deal of sympathy with the concern of local people, although his duties clearly prevented him from abandoning the Ministry of Defence aspiration to obtain the best possible price.
I do not wish to be churlish to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, but our lengthy dialogue on the subject of the Great Lines did not give me the feeling that he really appreciated the great concern that the proposals caused locally. He repeatedly offered the somewhat disingenuous advice that future development of the Great Lines lay in the hands of the council. That would no doubt be true, were it not certain that any developer buying the Great Lines on a hope basis would appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment against any council refusal of permission to develop.
Who can say what would be the outcome of such an appeal? Local interested parties are, not unnaturally, somewhat cynical about the fact that the Department not only adjudicates such appeals but is the Government's own estate agent, charged with obtaining the best price for the sale of Government land.
Moreover, there have already been development incursions on the Great Lines. The Ministry of Defence built an estate of married quarters and Kent county council purchased two sizeable chunks of land on which a large secondary school and a smaller primary school have been constructed. Local people fear that those incursions might be interpreted as precedents in a future planning appeal before a Department of the Environment inspector.
In recent months I have tried to be an enabler or catalyst between the Department of the Environment and the local council and local interested parties to seek a compromise solution. Discussions took place at officer level between representatives of the Property Services Agency and Gillingham council to see whether a planning application for a modest amount of residential development designed to be least damaging to the environmental character of the Great Lines could be framed in a way acceptable to the council, with the residual open space passing to council ownership.
It was felt that the loss of five or perhaps seven acres of open space would not be too grievous and would allow

the PSA to realise a substantial sum from the sale of the development land. I found that kind of compromise attractive and the discussions took place notwithstanding the continuing hostility of many councillors, residents and conservation groups who preferred that not a blade of grass should be touched.
In the event, the PSA submitted a planning application for no less than 14 acres, taking little or no account of environmental sensitivity and without having achieved or, I believe, even sought informal agreement from the council. That greedy, predatory application has wrecked the carefully constructed spirit of compromise. The council is now minded once again to resist all development on the Great Lines and to look with an extremely jaundiced eye at any future planning application from the PSA for any of the other redundant Ministry of Defence land in Gillingham. I must make it entirely clear to my hon. Friend the Minister that I sympathise completely with the council. A sensible compromise could have been constructed but for the burgeoning commercial aspirations of the PSA.
I should like to return to a part of my correspondence with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton concerning the responsibility for determining whether the development should be allowed. I shall read from some letters that he has sent me. His letter of 12 February 1986 says:
It is PSA's clear responsibility to ensure that market value is obtained when disposing of surplus Government land and, to ensure this, the planning position must be investigated before sale. PSA's Estate Surveyor is therefore appointing marketing agents who will advise on the potential of the Great Lines area or any part of it.
The limitation of development on this site or its preservation as open space are matters for resolution by the proper planning process which, as David Trefgarne pointed out, exists precisely to safeguard the public interest. Whilst I can understand the concern of the Gillingham Borough Council, their wishes do not in my view constitute an overriding reason to justify a departure from the Government's policy which is to offer surplus property on the open market. The Council will, of course, be able to bid for the property when it is offered.
That letter was supported by Lord Trefgarne, who wrote:
While I can understand the points which you and Mr. Jones"—
the chief executive of Gillingham then—
make about reserving the area as an open space both for amenity and heritage reasons, I do not think that it would be right for me to interfere in the normal disposal arrangements which are a matter for Sir George Young at the PSA. Moreover, there is a proper legal framework for deciding on development proposals, and I am sure that, if any planning application were to be submitted for development of the area, the most appropriate way for it to be considered is through the due planning processes, which, as you will appreciate, have been instituted specifically to guard against development which is against the public interest.
That is an interesting thought.
On 24 June, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton wrote again:
As I pointed out in my recent letter of 12 February, development control is a matter for the planning process and, as local planning authority, Gillingham Borough Council have the key role.
That is further confirmation. On 22 July, my hon. Friend wrote:
the PSA sought advice from the Agents to assist it in the marketing of Great Lines and it would therefore be inappropriate to publish any report.
That is a reference to the report that the advisers had drawn up. The letter continued:
As I have repeatedly stressed, any proposal for development which PSA may put forward will lead to a planning application to the local planning authority. The normal planning processes and public participation will then follow. I am anxious, as I am sure you are, not to undermine the role of the Gillingham Borough Council in the control of development in the locality.
In a letter to County Councillor Ferrin, who had written to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in his role as chairman of the Conservative party, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton wrote:
I am sorry that I cannot be of more assistance, but planning control is a matter for the local planning authority and I must avoid interfering with that responsibility.
In answer, on 23 July 1986, to my asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make a statement on the proposed sale, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton wrote once again:
The PSA Estate Surveyor is in discussion with Borough Council officials regarding the development potential of part of the property, and it is intended to submit an outline planning application, which, if granted, will benefit the disposal whilst at the same time ensure the protection of local conservation interests.
It seems to me that my hon. Friend's emphasis on the pre-eminent role of the local authority in determining a planning application means that if Gillingham borough council decides to resist all planning applications for development of the Great Lines, my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will presumably uphold the council's right to do that and refuse any appeals against the council's decision. That is most important and I should be grateful for my hon. Friend's assurance on that point.
I also seek my hon. Friend's assurance that any prospectus for the sale of the land will contain a clear, bold caveat that development of any part or all of the Great Lines will determined by Gillingham borough council and that such development must therefore be considered to be most unlikely.
With luck, such a caveat would make the sale of the Great Lines to a developer, bidding on hope value, more remote, and therefore make it more feasible for the council to purchase the Great Lines at open space value. There is a great fear locally that a "hopeful" developer might purchase the land, fence it and allow it to go derelict in the expectation that the council would ultimately have to allow development in order to eradicate what, by then, would be an eyesore.
The Great Lines are much loved by my constituents as an open space. They will be bitterly resentful of the Government if they seek to sell the whole of this priceless and irreplaceable green lung for the development of more housing in an area which already has inner-city densities of development. Gillingham borough council area has an average population of 21 people to the hectare, which is almost twice as much as Thanet, the next most populous district in Kent.
No one would seriously suggest developing houses in Hyde park, on Hampstead Heath, in Richmond park or on Blackheath in London. No one would be allowed to build on the Stray at Harrogate or on the Town Moor in Newcastle-on-Tyne. My hon. Friend's own city of Southampton is well provided with public parks—East and West parks, Palmerston park, Houndwell park Hoglands park, Riverside park and Town Hill park, not to mention Rownhams, Lordswood and Southampton

common. What would be the reaction of the citizens of Southampton if one of those green open spaces was suggested for development?
For the people of Gillingham, Chatham and Brompton, the Great Lines are all of those urban green lungs rolled into about 40 acres. Because the Army and the Royal Navy owned so much land in the Medway towns, the local authorities had no chance to acquire suitable land for parks and gardens. The disposal by the Ministry of Defence of the Great Lines offers a once-and-for-all opportunity for Gillingham council to raise the area of public open space in its ownership, but it can do so only if the land is sold at open space values, not residential land values.
There are many acres of redundant land in the ownership of the Ministry of Defence in the Medway towns, much of which is inferior to the Great Lines and thus much more developable. What should happen is that representatives of the PSA should sit down with senior members and officers of Gillingham borough council, Rochester city council and Kent country council to discuss the whole of the Ministry of Defence's land holding and all the likely disinvestments. I am certain that the local authorities would take a completely realistic view of planning applications on much of the land likely to be declared redundant, particularly if the integrity of the Great Lines is preserved by conveying the land to Gillingham borough council.
I conclude by urging my hon. Friend to call in this matter for his personal consideration and I should further like to invite him to visit the Great Lines and see the situation for himself. Much hope in the Medway towns attaches to our brief debate and I hope that my hon. Friend will not shatter that faith in the basis of fair dealing by Government. The aspirations of folk in the Medway towns have received some nasty knocks over the past five or six years and the development of housing on what they see as their local recreational park could well be one blow too many. The time has come for rebuilding their confidence. I am grateful for this opportunity to put their case.

Dame Peggy Fenner: I have come to the Chamber this morning with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) to express solidarity with a colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman). As with so many other factors in the Medway towns, the larger proportion of the affected area is within the borough council and constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham—rather like the Chatham dockyard, which was always called Chatham after my constituency, but which really had nine tenths of its acreage in the curtilage of my hon. Friend's constituency.
We have a border interest in the Great Lines. Within the area of the Rochester upon Medway city council and my constituency lies some 25 per cent. of the total area of the Great Lines. The area upon which the development has been proposed does not fall in that area. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham has so graphically described, the nature of the wonderful area of land is such that whatever is done on any part of the land will have a visual impact upon my constituents.
We have a tremendous tradition in the Medway towns of love, tolerance and great support for the services. Over


the years we have made many sacrifices in areas of land required by the services, to which my hon. Friend referred, that are scattered all over the Medway towns. I approve of and appreciate that it is proper for the state when it no longer requires such land to ensure that it divests itself of the land. I have had correspondence with the Department and I explained that when the state no longer requires land which has been freely given, used and accepted as land for the use of the services, the state has a responsibility to pay some heed to the voice of the people living in the locality over the way in which the future of that land is decided.
My hon. Friend has told my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that Gillingham borough council is a very good Conservative council. I want to state that it is joined by a council that, over the 11 years of its government, has not raised the borough rate once. We are considering two councils that are very mindful of the public purse and well understand the need of the PSA to receive some recompense for the land.
However, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will realise that the area is now regarded as a great green line in a fairly densely populated area of the Medway towns. I hope that he will come and see the site for himself and reconsider the compromise put forward by Gillingham borough council in whose curtilage the site lies. I hope that he will appreciate that we three Members with constituency interests—my hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham and Mid-Kent and myself—are here at this unusual hour of the morning because we have a solidarity in representing what we know to be the views of the constituents in our three constituencies.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham has made a case that requires little elaboration from this neighbour. I do not have a part of the Great Lines in my constituency, but I have inherited from my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) the majority of the town of Chatham. The people of Chatham feel very strongly that the Great Lines is a part of the heritage of the area. I am here because, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and for Medway, I feel totally committed to the defence of this patch.
The Medway towns have been the home of a wide range of substantial defence commitments for many centuries and they have been proud to play a leading part in the defence of this country, especially against threats from a Europe which, in the past, was rather more hostile than it is usually seen to be now. That is fair enough. However, one of the consequences of being so heavily dependent upon defence for a larger part of one's manpower, industry and landholding is that one pays a heavy price. When things are going badly for the country everybody wants to know about the area. They pour resources in, ask the dockyard to build and refit ships and provide large quantities of work. The moment the danger has passed, historically, Britain has always rewarded the armed services and the people who depend upon them with an extraordinary ingratitude. The consequence is that the Medway towns have always been one of the least prosperous parts of the south-east and, often, one of the

least prosperous parts of the United Kingdom because their economy has gone up and down according to the fortunes of war.
Because we have had to pay a heavy price in economic terms, it does not seem unreasonable to say to the Government that when they no longer require some of the massive landholdings that they possess they should genuinely give back to the local community some of the benefit they have enjoyed from them. I believe that to be essential.
The dominant circular governing the return of land to the people who own it—in this case I have no doubt that the original owners are lost in antiquity—is circular 18/84 which contains the statement:
Development by the Crown does not require planning permission. But Government Departments will consult local planning authorities before proceeding with development (including material changes of use) which would otherwise require planning permission.
If that is the rule that governs the behaviour of Departments while they own the land, it is perfectly clear that when they decide to divest themselves of a piece of land they should be every bit as scrupulous about taking into account the feelings and opinions of the local planning authority. That is really what we are talking about.
I believe it to be improper—I have had arguments with the Department before about small packets of PSA land within my own constituency—for the Government to have frozen, by their use of large tracts of land for defence purposes, the opportunities that the local planning authorities have had to develop the area as a whole. When it suits the Government to get rid of the land, they unload it in a way that, in effect, makes it difficult for the local planners to have any direct control over the outcome, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham pointed out, if the matter is taken to an appeal the Secretary of State for the Environment is the appeal authority, having been responsible for offloading the land in the first place. That is a danger in principle of which I have considerable suspicion. It needs to be looked at again.
I am a great believer in frugal housekeeping by Government. It is entirely proper that the Government should administer their resources competently and that they should try to obtain the best return for the country that they can. However, this area of Kent is taking a large overspill population and accommodating it, and it deserves special consideration by the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham is absolutely right to say that, because this area is grappling with enormous difficulties caused by the Government's abandonment of the dockyard, there should be an examination of all the Ministry of Defence's land holdings by the two district councils and the county council, as well as of the land holdings which eventually will come to the Property Services Agency, rather than that there should be a piecemeal disposal of land on terms which would cut out the local planning authorities and prevent them from reaching the kind of decision that they would have reached had the land not been frozen for centuries.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say that he welcomes this proposition and that he will allow the local authorities rather than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to dispose of the planning consents on the Great Lines.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) on his success in securing a debate on a matter that is very dear to the hearts of his constituents. I congratulate him also upon having been able to summon such eloquent support from my hon. Friends the Members for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). This is a sensitive planning issue, and I come to it relatively new. My hon. Friend was a little unfair about my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). I have seen nothing that suggests that he was in any way unsympathetic.
Great Lines is an area of some 48·5 acres of undeveloped land in Gillingham. I hope that I shall be forgiven, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I confine my remarks to those 48·5 acres rather than to the more extensive area to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent referred. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham referred to it as an historic area. Indeed, its connection with Departments of State goes back more than 250 years. It was part of a much larger area, bought originally to form part of the protective bastions of Chatham dockyard.
With the formation and development of the Corps of Royal Engineers at Chatham, the Great Lines became part of its training area and was used until recently by the Royal School of Military Engineering at nearby Brompton barracks. When it became surplus to the Ministry of Defence requirements it was passed for disposal to the Property Services Agency.
Great Lines remains a predominent local landmark overlooking Chatham and it is dominated by the Chatham naval memorial. I should make it clear that the memorial is not included in the disposal plans. It is protected by a 999 year ground lease that is held by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. The land is not designated as a public open space, but the public have rights of access across footpaths and over the years have been accustomed to use it as amenity land—for walking dogs, grazing horses, and so on. In April 1985 the Ministry of Defence decided to transfer this land to the Property Services Agency for disposal. Having done so, it is the PSA's responsibility to obtain the best price possible. That is normally done by putting the land on to the open market, with the benefit of any planning permission that can be obtained.
The background against which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton had to consider this matter was set out in a letter from Lord Trefgarne on 31 December 1985 to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham. Lord Trefgarne said in the letter that he could understand the points that had been made, but the Property Services Agency had been instructed to dispose of the area known as the Great Lines. He continued:
In the normal way, we would expect PSA to secure the highest achievable price for the land on the open market, and I understand that they are now considering with planning consultants how best to market the area.
While I can understand the points which have been made about reserving the area as an open space for amenity and heritage reasons, I do not think it would be right for me to interfere in the normal disposal arrangements which are a matter for Sir George Young at the PSA. Moreover, there is a proper legal framework for deciding on development proposals, and I am sure that, if any planning application were to be submitted for development of the area, the most

appropriate way for it to be considered is through the due planning processes, which, as you will appreciate, have been instituted specifically to guard against development which is against the public interest.
We are proceeding through those due planning processes at present. It is an indication of the careful way in which the PSA has proceeded that, despite having had the land handed over to it in April 1985, the first planning application was made only in October of this year. The PSA's estate surveyors looked at the site and considered that part of the area had development potential. Therefore they invited private planning consultants to look at it again and to advise on the marketing of the land. Those consultants have confirmed that 15 acres of the site has development potential.

Mr. Rowe: We are clear about the procedures which are to be followed, but I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that there are serious difficulties in circumstances where the whole of the planning and development of our area has been decided without being able to take into account any of the land that was required for defence purposes. Now it is up to the PSA and the Ministry of Defence to choose, at whatever moment they wish, to divest themselves of this land which has effectively been frozen over a very long time. The only person to whom the local residents can appeal, if they disapprove of any part of this piecemeal disposition of a huge landholding, is the Secretary of State who is responsible for the very agency trying to raise the largest price for the land. Will the Minister be kind enough to respond to that point?

Mr. Chope: I was going to respond to that point later, but perhaps I shall deal with it now. It is unfair to suggest that because I, as a Minister in the Department of the Environment responsible for the PSA, also belong to the same Department where the Secretary of State has overall responsibility for the PSA and planning appeals, the Secretary of State cannot carry out these roles in accordance with his proper statutory duties. It is because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might be faced with having to determine a planning appeal in relation to this land that he is not involved in this discussion about the role of the PSA. He is at pains to separate his role as the Secretary of State responsible for planning appeals from his role as overlord of the PSA. It is easy to suggest that somehow we will be judges in our own cause on this matter if it gets to an appeal, but I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent that that is not so and that the due proprieties will be observed in the event of the matter going to appeal. I suggest to my hon. Friend that, before we get anywhere near thinking about the question of appeals, the matter should be considered by the local planning authority. Indeed, as I understand it, that is what is happening at the moment. I am a little worried by some of the suggestions tonight that Gillingham borough council, the planning authority, has already made up its mind about that.
The private planning consultants were invited to advise on the matter and they have advised that there is a development potential on some 15 acres of the site.

Mr. Couchman: It is no slur on their integrity at all, but the planning consultants who were engaged to undertake the appraisal of planning potential are also substantial estate agents who have been responsible for selling off a great deal of land on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. That was, perhaps, an unfortunate choice. The report has


not been published and it is not available to me or to Gillingham borough council and the appraisal was obviously based on the consultants' considerable commercial knowledge within the area of development potential. I am a bit worried that someone from without the area was not brought in to do that planning consultation.

Mr. Chope: If the Property Services Agency invites planning consultants to assist it, it is more helpful for the agency to invite planning consultants who have a knowledge of the area. If one invites estate agents from some remote part of the country to advise upon land values and development potential in a particular part of Kent, they can be in no better position than the PSA. I would defend the decision to go to local planning consultants and I am sorry that my hon. Friend has criticisms of them.
I am not hiding behind the consultants' recommendations. They are only a factor to be taken into account. What they conclude—my hon. Friend has confirmed this during his remarks—is that there is some development potential on at least part of the site. My hon. Friend has referred to an area of 6 to 7 acres; the planning consultants are referring to about 15 acres. The site as a whole is some 48·5 acres. There may not be as much difference between the parties on that as the debate might have suggested.
Following the obtaining of the consultants' report, detailed discussions took place with the borough council. I am concerned that some of the comments made earlier might suggest that the PSA was riding roughshod over the local planning authority in this matter and was not consulting it.
Let me refer to a letter sent by the chief executive and town clerk of Gillingham to the district estate surveyor of the PSA on 25 June. He said:
The Borough Council have asked me to get in touch with you to open formal discussions on the future of the Great Lines and proposals for disposal, so that I can formally give you the Council's views in supplementation of the informal discussions we have already had. Since I am under instructions to report back to the next meeting of the Leisure Services Committee on 15 July, I would be grateful if a meeting could be arranged before then.
Meetings did take place. A letter dated 27 June, some two days later, said:
I am writing to confirm the arrangements made by telephone … for you to come to this office … on Monday, 14th July, to discuss the Great Lines. I am grateful to you for coming over immediately on your return from leave, as it will enable me to report verbally to the meeting of my Committee the following day.
From an early stage the PSA and its district surveyor, after seeing the report from the consultants, entered into discussions with the officers of the Gillingham borough council. A meeting took place on 23 July between the chief executive and the town clerk, Mr. Glyn Jones, and senior officials of the agency. As a result, the consultants were instructed to agree a planning application with the officers of the Gillingham borough council.
My hon. Friends will know that when a potential developer applies for planning permission or thinks about applying for planning permission, a lot of informal discussions take place. Such discussions took place in this instance and a planning application was duly submitted on 27 October. A further meeting took place on 3 December

between a senior PSA official and the new chief executive and elected members of the council. That meeting was attended by the leaders of the three parties, the chairman of the leisure services committee, the chairman of the planning control committee, and the vice-chairman of the development committee. It was agreed at that meeting that a co-ordinated approach to the development options could be devised, and officials on both sides have been working on a revision to the planning application.
I am worried that my hon. Friends seem to be under the impression that the matter was already resolved one way, namely, that the planning application would be refused. As recently as that meeting on 3 December the Property Services Agency was invited to go away and consider a revised planning application. I understand that that application will be placed before the council at a meeting in February.
Because of what my hon. Friends have said, I am aware of the strong local feeling about the need to preserve the Great Lines. The current discussions about the planning proposals recognise that anxiety. If the current proposals were to be implemented, it would mean that development on the visually prominent area of some 30 acres would be restricted virtually for ever—certainly for the forseeable future. This would leave the area around the war memorial quite undisturbed.
The Ministry of Defence and the Property Services Agency have a commendable record for paying regard to their responsibilities for conserving Britain's heritage. As my hon. Friends have said, the preservation of Chatham's historic dockyard is an obvious example of that.
My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Defence and for the Environment have jointly set up a trust which has the important function of maintaining the extremely important historic buildings with a view to attracting visitors and potential users. Another example, perhaps less well known, is the preservation work at Fort Amherst. In 1983 the Ministry of Defence sold this part of the original Chatham dockyard fortifications to the Fort Amherst Lines Trust for preservation of the existing multi-level complex of moats, batteries, a redoubt, a bastion and, in particular, a remarkable interlinking tunnel system.
The present proposals must be seen against that background. Property Services Agency officials have been discussing proposals for the revised planning application and those proposals are designed to protect local conservation interests while at the same time producing the maximum financial benefit from the sale of the land. In this way I hope that a compromise can be reached. It could be reached at borough council level and that would satisfy the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton by enabling the local planning authority to decide this matter in the light of the interests of local people.
My hon. Friends cannot reasonably expect any person applying for planning permission to fetter his discretion to make an appeal in the event of that application being refused. That matter would have to be considered in the event of such a refusal. I am still hopeful that at the council meeting in February when the revised planning application is put forward a compromise agreement will be achieved.
If there is not any agreement and all the applications made by the Property Services Agency for development on any of this land are refused, notwithstanding that my hon.


Friend said that some of it has development potential, the Property Services Agency will either have to appeal or consider selling the land on the open market without the benefit of any planning permission whatsoever.

Mr. Couchman: Can I repeat my invitation to my hon. Friend? This is a very important matter, as there are many hundreds of acres of Ministry of Defence land within the towns. I know that my hon. Friend has confined his remarks to the Great Lines, and that indeed was the subject of the debate, but the other land is related and linked and does impinge upon this application. Can I repeat my invitation to my hon. Friend, at his convenience, to come down to the Medway towns and see some of the Ministry of Defence land—because this will be an ongoing matter, with the Property Services Agency seeking to sell more and more land? It must be done in a cohesive, not a disjointed fashion.

Mr. Chope: Especially at this time of the year I am not in the habit of turning down invitations. I would be very happy to discuss with my hon. Friend the possible implementation of such a visit. Whether that could be arranged before the meeting of the council in February, I could not say. I have visited the area. There is no doubt that, as the Minister responsible for the Property Services Agency, I would benefit from seeing it at closer range and looking at some of the other potential planning issues which may arise.

Orders of the Day — Islands Councils (Scotland)

Mr. Donald Stewart: The Montgomery report deals with the islands of the Orkneys and Shetlands, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), and the Western Isles, which I represent. The report was commissioned by the former Secretary of State for Scotland, was laid on the shelf and has not previously been debated in the House. I accept that the report is hardly a burning issue with other hon. Members, even Scottish Members, but it can be read by all Members with some regard for grass roots democracy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland has made valiant efforts to secure a debate on the report but has been defeated by the luck of the draw or, as happened a fortnight last Friday, by the first debate taking up the full time. So he will share my satisfaction that, even at this hour, we can make our views known on the Montgomery report.
The creation of the islands councils as all-purpose authorities has been a great success, even more marked in the Western Isles, which until the reorganisation of local government in the 1970s had been, unlike Orkney and Shetland—which enjoyed county council status since 1929—an adjunct of Ross and Cromarty and Inverness county councils. As a county councillor who had to travel to Dingwall on the Scottish mainland for meetings, and subsequently as a Member of Parliament who had to deal with both Dingwall and Inverness on local government affairs pertaining to my constituency, independence for the Western Isles was certainly a welcome development for me as well as a satisfaction as an islander in making our own decisions in local government.
The Secretary of State for Scotland at the time of the reorganisation did not allow the Western Isles island council to start in business with clear books. It inherited burdens unknown to other authorities and, despite the manifest improvements, the financial strains have severely curbed developments in the outer isles. One appalling burden was caused by the shameful neglect of Inverness county council to give a fair deal to the islands when they were under its jurisdiction. Had that council done its duty by the islands, the problems for the new council would have been substantially reduced.
The Montgomery report was one of the most useful submissions made on Scotland. I have been involved with one or two similar submissions in local government and in Parliament, and several of them have related to my constituency, but this is one of the best reports that I have seen. Even this long period after the report was issued, I again congratulate Sir David Montgomery and his colleagues on doing the job thoroughly and on producing recommendations that combine fairness, practicality and good sense.
I fully support the recommendation,
that there should be no reduction in the powers of the islands councils and that the opportunity should he taken wherever possible to consolidate, develop and extend these powers.
I also support the recommendation that the Secretary of State should recognise,
the direct interest of the islands councils in the welfare of the fishing industry in their areas, and they should be included in any local managment arrangements.
Recent events make that course even more desirable.
The record and local experience of the councils are sufficient guarantee that the vital needs of their fishermen and fishing communities would be administered in fairness for their economy and the conservation of stocks of fish. On cultural development, I welcome the backing of the report for adequate financial support to be made available to the Western Isles islands council to ensure that its efforts to promote the Gaelic language may continue.
I take issue with my council on the question of health boards. It wished to take over the responsibility, which the report rejected. Although there is substance in the council's contention that the Secretary of State controls the health board's priorities, it seems to me better to have a health authority fighting its corner on a special remit than to deal with health matters among the conflicting demands on council priorities and the financial restraints placed on them by central Government.
I am glad that the report recommended that the present system of attendance allowances should be replaced by a form of salary or a fixed annual sum. I took that view at the inception of the reorganisation legislation. It is clear that the time and travel involved restricts the numbers who can offer themselves as councillors, and that cannot be democratic.
It should be acknowledged that, since the report, the Scottish Office has taken action on some of the issues raised, such as teachers, houses and support for the Gaelic language—the latter, however, on a Scottish rather than an islands council basis. I support the submission of Western Isles islands council to the committee that there should be consultation about the purposes and contents of new legislation. So often schemes tailored for urban populations do not make sense in an island community. Accordingly, I support the committee's recommendation that there may be circumstances in which Acts of Parliament should include a provision to allow the Secretary of State to vary their application to the island areas.
On the frequency of elections, I disagree with the committee. More frequent elections would allow communities to register their views on the performance of councillors in a more accountable way. At present, in my island council, all 30-odd councillors come out at the same time. It would be unlikely that all would be defeated, although they could be on some issues, such as the closing of the schools, which arose two or three years ago. People from the different communities were up in arms against the local councillors. We might have had the strange position whereby the bulk of the councillors would have been removed and entirely new people, green to local government, would have replaced them. I think it desirable that the old system should apply, which meant that the old borough councils' section of the councillors stood for election from time to time.
The report wisely states:
We would not want our conclusions to be regarded as final, nor should they necessarily apply for more than a relatively short period.
That is a statesmanlike observation that recognises the speed of change, even on the islands. The worthwhile labours of the Montgomery committee should be seen and duly rewarded by a plan for the Scottish Office to develop

and extend the powers of the councils, which have amply demonstrated their ability to act responsibly with forward-looking initiatives for the people of the islands of Scotland.

Mr. James Wallace: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) on his good fortune in securing the debate, albeit at a somewhat early hour of the morning. His fortune is certainly better than my own, having twice drawn second place in the ballot for private Members' motions on a Friday only to find the first motion being debated until 2.30 pm.
It is to be welcomed that we can debate the Montgomery committee's report even at this late stage. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, much hard work went into producing it. It is the result of a good examination of the issues facing local government in the islands and it contains a number of worthwhile recommendations. I take up one of the conclusions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, which is that the creation of the islands councils as all-purpose authorities has been a success. That is widely accepted on the islands and throughout Scotland. It is somewhat difficult to believe that the Royal Commission, under the chairmanship of Lord Wheatley, proposed that Orkney and Shetland should be the second or district tier of a highlands and islands region. In retrospect, that was an appalling and insensitive proposal. It is to the credit of the Administration of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that they listened to the views of those who sought an all-purpose authority for each of the island groups. That alteration to the Wheatley recommendation has been proven valid by its operation.
Under a two-tier system it is clear that the islands would have felt remote, as the right hon. Member for Western Isles will recall from his experience as a county councillor on the old Ross and Cromarty county council. Oil development took place in my constituency in the 1970s and if planning had been a regional function, direction from Inverness would not have resulted in the degree of control or sensitivity that was necessary at such a time.
Having declared the island councils a success, the Montgomery committee observed that the opportunity should be taken wherever possible to consolidate, develop and extend their powers. There was a feeling after the Montgomery committee had reported that possibly it had missed an opportunity to do just that. Those who sit on such committees are aware of the track record of similar reports—it is true that they often tend to gather dust on a Government Department shelf—and it may be that by putting forward some modest and practical proposals the members of the committee were hoping that some of them stood a chance of being implemented. If that were the position, I venture to suggest that their optimism was slightly misplaced.
The Government's response was negative on the whole and inadequate, but I have no doubt that the Minister will inform the House that the Government accepted 37 of the 49 recommendations and had implemented two of them by the time that they came to publish their response. The alteration to the law relating to the sale of teachers' houses was forced upon the Government by those in another place, and was subsequently accepted. Most of the recommendations that were accepted were negative ones that reaffirmed the status quo, or otherwise were couched


in general terms that did not require much initiative to develop other than simply to agree to them. The Government appeared to reject the more substantial recommendations. Like all local authorities, islands councils have experienced the increasing level of centralisation that has take place in recent years. It has diminished the scope for local initiative. Local decision making is important. Decisions are better if they are taken with sensitivity to local needs and considerations. Very often, they are better if they are one's own decisions. There is a concern that many local circumstances, particularly in the islands, are unique and cannot always adequately be provided for or, sometimes, foreseen when the House passes legislation that perhaps, is directed principally to problems arising in a more urban context.
There is also a fear that many problems and circumstances of islands communities are not fully appreciated by central Government. The sale of local education authority housing was a case in point. In the Green Paper entitled "Paying for Local Government", the Government acknowledged that the islands councils of Orkney and Shetland required special consideration. When the Bill was published there was no clear sign of that special consideration. It has been explained that, as long as indexation of the non-domestic rate takes place, that will be taken care of. As the Government move towards their clear intention of introducing a uniform business rate, more detailed special arrangements will be required.
I understand that last week a meeting took place between councillors and officials of Shetland islands council and Scottish Office officials. Discussions are also to take place with representatives from the other islands councils. These direct talks between islands councils and the Scottish office are welcome. One of the Committee's recommendations was that the Scottish Office should consider whether there might be grounds for asking for a separate islands council view.
In his response, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), thought that the Convention of Scottish Authorities was the best channel for such communication. He said:
The procedures for consultation will be reviewed with the Committee's recommendation in mind.
There have been recent examples of that. Perhaps the Minister will say more about how that has developed, since the Secretary of State has demonstrated a willingness to review the procedure.
The Committee's fourth recommendation related to circumstances in which legislation might be varied in its application to the islands. The right hon. Member for Western Isles referred to that matter. That recommendation was generally accepted. I would much rather the Committee had gone further and agreed to one of the proposals that had been put—that there should be an islands desk or unit within the Scottish Office, at least at first on an experimental basis. One may ask why island areas should be treated any differently. For a start they are unique in that they have single-tier local authorities. The very fact that they are islands makes their circumstances different. For example, on the application of milk quotas, in my own constituency, in Shetland and in Orkney the problems varied between the two sets of islands. But because of the very fact that they were islands problems existed in relation to the application of the legislation which did not pertain in other parts of Scotland.
As the Minister is probably well aware from his visit to my constituency earlier this year, transport links to, from and within the islands are special to the islands communities. There are special circumstances relating to the islands. A desk or unit at the Scottish Office could usefully safeguard the interests of the islands and keep a watching brief on matters that affect the islands. It could build an expertise on islands issues. That would help towards better, and, sometimes quicker, decisions.
The committee dealt with the finances of the local authorities in detail. First, it recommended that capital expenditure consents should be in a single block allocation. That was rejected in the Secretary of State's response, but I am pleased to say that there has been a change of heart in the Scottish Office and that that recommendation has now been agreed to. When it was put to the Minister at a COSLA meeting, he responded that there had not been any demand for change. The report in my local newspaper suggested that he was corrected quickly on that point by the convenor of Orkney islands council, who referred to the committee's recommendation, and the evidence presented to it. It is welcome that control will be lifted as from April next. It gives greater freedom for local authorities to determine local priorities, albeit on restricted budgets.
The second financial issue relates to section 83 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which gives each local authority the power to spend up to the product of a 2p rate on purposes in the general interest of their area. A problem arises for the islands authorities. In mainland Scotland there is a two-tier system of local government, so the product for spending on the general interest of the areas comes from region and district, and is therefore twice as much as can be raised in a single-tier authority.
The committee recommended that there should be a change—that it should be double the amount in the islands authorities—but the Secretary of State deferred the decision until the report of the Widdicombe committee. That committee recommends that there should be a change in the basis of raising money and that there should be a population-based ceiling, although it admits that it would lower significantly the ceiling for expenditure for the Scottish islands councils. However, it goes so far as to say that there should be a double rate for single-tier authorities.
If the Government intend to legislate on the basis of the Widdicombe committee, having received representations made to them, I would ask that the position of the islands councils be kept in mind. I ask the Minister to say what the effect of the abolition of domestic rates will be on the provision, pending any legislation on the basis of Widdicombe.
The third financial issue relates to the standing consent that Shetland islands council sought for capital expenditure out of its oil reserve fund. That was rejected in the Government's response. The former Secretary of State said that there were
fundamental objections in terms of our wider objectives for public expenditure.
The right hon. Gentleman said that, if he had allowed that standing consent, he would have had to hold back the equivalent sum in the normal capital consents. That is taking the Government's public expenditure control just a step too far. It is implausible that the Chancellor could manage to fine-tune the economy so much that the £7


million at the most that Shetland islands council could get in any one year from the reserve fund could have a major effect on the nation's economy.
The money is wanted for proposed industrial development and investment, building up alternative sources of employment, developing the infrastructure and providing services, particularly in the remoter parts of the Shetland islands area. It would be used to try to make sure that the islands were put on a secure basis for the day when the oil income diminishes. The amount involved may be relatively small in national terms, but it is significant for developments in Shetland. It is paternalistic for the Scottish Office to say that the Shetland islands council must go cap in hand for consent to spend the money that it has managed to accrue in its oil reserve fund.
The right hon. Member for Western Isles referred to the important issue of fisheries management. The islands are close to major fishing grounds. There is an important industry in the catching sector and in related onshore work in all three groups of islands. The fishing industry is vital to those three local economies. Rightly, the local authorities take a clear interest in it, as the Montgomery committee acknowledged. The committee accepted the arguments for greater regional management of fisheries and said that there should be opportunities for the local fleet to fish in local waters and ensure that fishing did not endanger stocks. The committee recommended that the local authority should play a role in local management arrangements. Regrettably, the Government rejected that recommendation.
Even since the Montgomery committee took evidence, there have been incidents in which local authorities, which have a considerable involvement in this issue, have not been properly consulted and involved in major decisions affecting fisheries—for example, the licensing of vessels engaged in catching certain pressure stocks and, more importantly in the past two years, the implementation of the Government's inshore fishing legislation. Clear proposals by the Orkney and Shetland councils, backed by fishing associations in the two sets of islands, were not given proper attention before the orders were laid before the House. I believe that that lack of consultation aggravated the councils as much as the fact that the proposals were not implemented. I hope that the Government will recognise the great need for the local authorities in Orkney and Shetland to be much more involved in a more regional structure of management of fisheries.
The local authorities do not have sole control over the protective services—the police and fire services—in their areas, but joint boards exist. The arrangements are not entirely satisfactory, because of the domination by the Highland region. I think that the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram)—will recall the early months of 1985 when we were batting on the same side and it appeared that the Highland regional council was trying to solve its budgetry problems by passing on cuts to the police committee. The effects were being felt in my constituency, with the threatened closure of police stations. That issue was eventually resolved, but there clearly has been continued dissatisfaction with the way in which the joint boards are financed. The amounts paid bear no relationship to the services provided.
Although I do not underestimate the difficulties involved in reforming the system, I agree with the committee's recommendation that apportionment of the cost of the police and fire services based on actual cost should be discussed by the boards, the local authorities and the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State did not shut the door on that possibility in his response. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will have an open mind on this subject and announce any discussions that he has had to find better financial arrangements for the protective services.
It has been recommended that council employees should not be allowed to stand for election to local authority councils. That recommendation caused considerable disappointment. A single-tier authority means that there is no opportunity for council employees—for example, teachers—to take an elected part in local government, unlike teachers employed by the regional authority, who can stand for election to district authority positions.
Paragraph 6.34 of the Widdicombe report said:
A more general ban on twin-tracking would deprive 3 million people of the right to be a councillor. This would not only reduce their rights as individual citizens, but would reduce the representativeness of council membership.
I hope that the Scottish Office in particular, in responding to the Widdicombe report, will bear in mind the particular problems caused by single-tier authorities on the islands and will consider whether there is any way in which those people who are effectively debarred from taking an elected post can seek election to such office.
In the past seven years the Government have increasingly centralised power through their actions on local government finance and in the past fortnight even in education. That is very much against the trend that we wish to see in the islands, where we believe that local democracy should be enhanced by greater powers. The Montgomery committee said:
the opportunity should be taken wherever possible to consolidate, develop and extend the powers.
The Government gave general approval to the report and specific approval to that recommendation, but unfortunately their actions have not always matched up to their words. We look forward to much more willingness on the part of the Government to promote greater and healthier local democracy in the islands areas of Scotland.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I certainly endorse the final comments of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). The trend towards centralisation must be specially alarming to those who represent the remoter island areas of Scotland.
It is customary on these occasions to begin by congratulating the hon. Member who has raised the subject on his good fortune in obtaining the opportunity to do so. With the clock showing 4.40 am, I am not sure that the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) will regard it as particularly good fortune, but I congratulate him on his persistence, which has made it possible to debate this subject on this occasion. The right hon. Gentleman is held in great affection in all parts of the House, but the very fact that at this stage of his career he finds it necessary to raise the affairs of his constituency at this time of the morning in a Consolidated Fund debate graphically illustrates the rather forlorn position of a Scottish National party Member. Not even the charm and


talent of the of the right hon. Gentleman can overcome the built-in handicap of being a member of Scotland's equivalent of the Flat Earth Society. With the best will in the world, it is very difficult to take the SNP seriously. The right hon. Gentleman has held the Western Isles seat on loan from the Labour party for a number of years. When he begins his well-earned and, I hope, long and happy retirement next year I look forward to working with Calum MacDonald, the future Labour Member, who will have a very direct influence over the policies of the next Labour Government towards the island areas of Scotland.
As has been pointed out, the Montgomery report is not the most radical or exciting document to see the light of day in recent years. As it contains no fewer than 27 recommendations for "no change", it is perhaps not surprising that the Government have accepted 37 of the 49 recommendations. Although it is not the most thrilling document, it addresses a number of fundamental problems, particularly the fact that in a single-tier local authority a large section of the population of the area is debarred from standing for election to that authority. That seems to restrict the scope of democracy in the area and something ought to be done about it.
In recent years I have visited all three islands areas and I fully recognise the very special circumstances and problems that they face. I went to the Orkney and Shetland islands initially as a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs when we were investigating rural transport and ferries. More recently, I had the opportunity to visit the Western Isles and to meet representatives of the various islands councils. It is self-evident that the islands areas are different from the mainland areas in very many ways. They have a strong case for special arrangements. Some exist, but there may be a case for extending them.
During my recent visits to the islands areas I have found that talk has concentrated on a range of subjects which would be of relatively little interest to people in mainland areas, which illustrates the point that the circumstances are different. People have been talking about the Crown Estates Commissioners' policies on rents for moorings and fish farm sites. We would not expect people in other parts of Scotland or England to express much interest in that.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland talked of local fishing management, and there are also the questions of land, the European integrated development programme and the vexed question of financing ferries and the road equivalent tariff which is complicated enough for a mainlander, without hearing people in the Shetlands saying one thing about it and people in the Western Isles saying something rather different.
It is well known that the Labour party has a strong commitment to helping and developing all of Scotland's rural areas, and to recognising the special circumstances of the islands. It was a Labour Government who set up the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and we recognise that there may be a case for developing the principle of it, possibly by extending the scope of islands councils in respect of economic development. I believe that that merits consideration.
We shall publish next month a document on agriculture policy. I hope that it will make it clear that we see ways in which to assist and protect agriculture in all parts of Scotland.

Mr. Wallace: Can the hon. Gentleman foreshadow what will be in that document? Will it propose the rating of agricultural land? If so, will he explain to many of my farming constituents, who are finding it difficult to make ends meet, how that will benefit them and the rural community?

Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman must not encourage me to betray confidences and break embargos. As for bringing agriculture into the rating system, I am astonished that hon. Members who represent island areas should, of all people, defend the barley barons of my constituency and East Anglia from contributing to the cost of local services. It palpably would not make sense to levy a rate on the agricultural element of a crofter's business, and I hope that that is well understood by all concerned.
Our policies are in marked contrast to those of the Government. The free market theory of life makes little sense in England, but it is patently absurd in Scotland's island areas. A business in Barra or Unst cannot possible compete on an equal footing in an artificial free market with mainland-based enterprises. The policies of privatisation have been at best irrelevant and possibly downright harmful to the interests of the islands.
I shall skate over the rather sordid story of the privatisation of MacBrayne Haulage and consider British Gas. As for the advertisements featuring a rather implausible Hebridean Sid—

Mr. Donald Stewart: What has this to do with Montgomery?

Mr. Home Robertson: —how many Sids are there in the islands areas? How many constituents of the right hon. Member for Western Isles are gas consumers and can take advantage of the preferential share issue? I wonder whether the commercial approach of privatised industries is likely to make it more difficult to extend the services of such industries into remoter areas.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to the poll tax. It is abundantly clear that it cannot distinguish between those who have and those who do not have access to local services. How can that be appropriate, particularly to local government in the islands areas?
The Montgomery report is certainly a useful document and it reflects the diversity of ideas about the future of the islands. We are convinced that all areas of Scotland, including the islands, would benefit from a more accountable, accessible, autonomous administration based in Edinburgh, along the lines of our proposal for a Scottish assembly. The islands have the good fortune of a single tier local government system—a pattern which could well be developed in other parts of Scotland. We would do well to study that.
I have resisted the temptation to go into great detail on the report, but I have listened with care to what was said about the specific recommendations in the report. In conclusion, we recognise the special problems of the islands areas. As remote parts of a remote nation within the union they clearly merit special attention. They will benefit from a Labour Government who will not have the inhibitions of the present Government about interfering in the economy to develop remote areas, and from the constitutional changes that we are planning to improve the responsiveness of all levels of government in Scotland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the debate.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) on securing the opportunity to raise matters which are clearly of great importance to his constituents. I was amazed by the speech of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and can only think that he fell into the Minch on his way to the Western Isles and found himself out of his depth, because his speech bore no relation to the genuine problems raised by the right hon. Gentleman. It was a sort of party political broadcast and I suspect that when it is read in the Western Isles the wretched gentleman whose name he mentioned as the Labour candidate will find that his chances have gone for ever.
Obviously, there are some matters on which I can wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Gentleman and others on which we shall have to agree to disagree. I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that the creation of the islands councils has been a success. That is certainly the Government's view, as was made clear by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State in his response to the Montgomery committee's report in July 1985. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend was equally positive towards the committee's recommendation that the opportunity should be taken to consolidate, develop and build on that success.
I shall deal in greater detail with some of the steps that the Government have taken to implement certain specific recommendations. I can accept that the Montgomery committee also did a useful job in pointing up areas of contact between central and local government where changes could be beneficial to local government generally, not just in the islands. The Government have responded positively by accepting a number of the recommendations. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland cannot use that fact in support of his argument that the Government's response to the report has been "negative". If, of the 37 recommendations accepted, only a modest number are distinctive to the islands, that means that the balance of those accepted have been beneficial to local government generally. That is a plus rather than a minus, and illustrates the Government's positive attitude towards local government and central government relations.
I know that the hon. Gentleman claimed to be disappointed by the Government's response to the report. Obviously, people do not get everything that they want, but that natural reaction should not be allowed to obscure the fact that worthwhile recommendations were made and accepted, and that changes have resulted. It was alleged that most of the committee's recommendations were in favour of the status quo, and that those were the only recommendations accepted. In fact, only 11 of 49 recommendations expressed the committee's view that some changes which had been proposed should not be made. In all 37 recommendations were accepted.
The first five recommendations were about constitutional issues. In view of the proposals that it received in evidence for what amounted to constitutional change, the committee decided to proceed by examining the relationship between the islands and the rest of the country. Having done that, it was not disposed to favour

any change that might weaken existing ties. It concluded that future developments should be built on the present structure of local government.
The Government entirely agreed with that conclusion. In accepting the recommendations, however, my right hon. Friend also accepted the need for a review of consultation procedures and the need to ensure that statutory provisions are applicable in the islands in a way that accords with their special circumstances. We have taken action to ensure that every official in the Scottish Office is fully aware of these needs when developing proposals to put to Ministers or undertaking consultation on our behalf that may affect the islands. Direct contact with council officials has tended to increase because of new procedures within the Scottish Office to ensure that the islands are fully taken into consideration. Consultations are taking place at the moment on the longer-term proposals for local government finance reform. That again is very much within the spirit of what has been suggested.
A number of financial recommendations were raised by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. The first of these relates to capital consent, where the recommendation was that it should be given to the islands councils in the form of a single block allocation. At the time that the original response was given, there was only a limited use of the existing 10 per cent. flexibility and that was what was meant by demand. However, following further consultations with COSLA, it was decided that we should accept the recommendation not only for the islands but for all councils excluding the housing blocks for district councils.
Several recommendations were raised and question marks placed against them. Recommendation 11 deals with section 83 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The point is that the single-tier islands councils may each spend up to the product of a 2p rate under this provision, whereas on the mainland both district and regional councils may do so. The Government have not rejected this recommendation. Since discretionary spending powers were being reviewed by the Widdicombe committee, it seemed sensible to wait until it had reported before contemplating any change. The committee has now reported, and, in considering its recommendations, we shall bear in mind the earlier one made by the Montgomery committee. In the meantime, revaluation—perhaps coincidentally—has more than doubled the amount of expenditure that councils may incur under section 83. For the present, I suspect that the councils are able, if they so wish, to achieve what they were seeking in the first place.
Recommendation 12 was raised, and has been the subject of some misunderstanding. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said that there could not be such a degree of fine tuning and that an expenditure of £7 million could affect public expenditure. We work within a cash limit on the amount of capital expenditure that all Scottish local authorities may incur. Capital expenditure by local authorities is a significant proportion of public expenditure in Scotland. Within that cash limit, and working within that limit, a transfer would have had to be made had the recommendation been allowed. In all the circumstances, it was felt that that was not the right way to proceed. Part of the misunderstanding was that there were those on the islands who felt that they were not being allowed to use the revenues that they had received from oil. In practice, had the money not been present, the local


authorities would have had to borrow, so a direct benefit has been achieved by the islands in the use of those resources.

Mr. Wallace: Although I appreciate that the policy of the Government, whether one agrees with it or not, is one of cash limits and the control of public expenditure, surely part of the argument put forward is that public expenditure has to be raised and the Government usually argue that it has to be raised from the taxpayer. However, in this case, the money is already there. It has accrued from the oil companies. It is not as if there has to be additional taxation.

Mr. Ancram: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's grasp of general economies is not perhaps as strong as it should be. There is a great difference between the public sector borrowing requirement, which is what the Government have to raise other than through taxes; money that the Government self-spend, and public expenditure control, which is the totality of spending in public by the nation. It is the second that has major macro-economic effects and upon which any Government have to keep a firm control unless they are to find that certain unpleasant macro-economic results occur.
The question of fishing was raised by the right hon. Member for Western Isles. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State willingly acknowledged the interest that the islands councils have in the welfare of the fishing industry in their areas. Given the complex national and international considerations that apply to the management of the industry, it was our view that it was not realistic to think that substantial powers could be devolved to local authorities. It is understood that the islands have an interest in fishing and obviously that is recognised by my right hon. and learned Friend.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned the question of transport and internal ferry services. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I visited Orkney this summer to see what the problem was. The recommendation made by the Montgomery committee was that the Orkney islands council should take over responsibility for internal ferry services in its area. Significant progress has been made in that matter, with agreement reached on the timing of the handover and the financial arrangements to reflect the transfer of responsibility. There are still a number of matters connected with the handover that are under discussion and I would hope that they would be resolved in the reasonably near future.

Mr. Wallace: Is the Minister in a position to say when a decision will be announced with regard to the type of vessel that might be used for the north isles shipping in Orkney?

Mr. Ancram: I can say only that I hope that we shall be in a position to announce that reasonably soon. Obviously there were major considerations involved and the hon. Gentleman knows that on my visit I looked closely at the situation, not just in consultation with islands councils, but out on the sea, seeing some of the problems that exist in terms of inter-island transport.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland also raised the matter of recommendations 31 and 32 that relate to the Gaelic language. They could not be wholly accepted as they stood. However, regulations that became effective on 1 April 1986 have allowed specific grants to be made for Gaelic language education. Grants for the current financial year have been paid and applications for next year are being considered. I think that that represents a major step towards the objectives of those recommendations.
There is less progress to report on recommendation 35, which was about the apportionment of the costs of police and fire services. It is the Secretary of State's view, in not rejecting the recommendation, that it is not really for the Government to impose the arrangements for the apportionment of costs in the absence of evidence that a different system could be made to work at a reasonable cost without reducing efficiency or in a way that would significantly alter the present apportionment of costs. I know that that has been a matter of discussion between the various councils and we are awaiting proposals. However, it is a matter that must be resolved by the councils themselves and not by imposition from the Government.
The right hon. Member for Western Isles raised the matter of recommendation 46, which was that the present system of attendance allowances for councillors should be replaced by a form of salary. I have two things to say about that. The first is that it remains our view that, on the balance of the arguments, there is insufficient justification for treating the islands as a special case. The second, perhaps more relevantly, is that this question is to be reviewed in relation to all local authorities in the light of the Widdicombe committee's recommendations.
Whatever the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the right hon. Member for Western Isles may say, the truth is that all the proposals that were advanced on behalf of the island communities were thoroughly and impartially examined by the Montgomery committee. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman welcomed that committee's work. Its conclusions were realistic and sensible. Although the Government were unable to accept all of them, it would be misleading to suggest that the special interests of the islanders have in any way been disregarded. On the contrary, they have been carefully considered and the Government will continue to take account of their interests.

Orders of the Day — Enterprise Agencies

Mr. Henry Bellingham: This debate provides me with an opportunity to speak about a very important subject albeit during the early hours of the morning. When I met my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment at the end of last week I told him that I had some very good news for him, and I meant it. However, I should have told him that I had appalling news for him, because I have been instrumental in dragging him out of bed on Tuesday morning at about 3.45.
The debate provides me with an opportunity to say a few words about the Government's record in the small firms sector. During the last few years the Government's commitment to the small firms sector has been unprecedented. Six years of socialism led to over-regulation, over-taxation and a general overburdening of the small firms sector. It was completely demoralised. When they first came to power, the Government's aim was to reverse that decline in morale and, above all, to create a structure that would enable small businesses to be established and encourage existing small businesses.
There has been a plethora of measures, the most important of which are the loan guarantee scheme, the enterprise allowance scheme and the business expansion scheme. Never before has the climate been so favourable for the setting up of small firms. That is borne out by the evidence. There is now a record number of self-employed people, and a record number of people want to start up small firms.
There has always been a need for the right advice on start-ups and for "hands on" advice. Above all, existing small and medium-sized enterprises that might have run into difficulties need the right advice. Where did people go? They went to local accountants, solicitors or banks, but often they were overawed. They could go to the small firms service, but in most cases it was too remote, even though the local small firms counsellors were men of high calibre. A local focal point was needed to which people could turn for friendly advice and help. There was also a need for winners to be backed. That was one of the problems that had to be tackled during the first Parliament of this Government.
That point is summed up well in this week's edition of The Economist. It refers to the numerous measures that have been taken by this Government, and then says:
These strategies aim to create a range of opportunities which small businesses may draw on, and an environment in which they can prosper and expand. Such aid is unselective: it does little to pick promising firms for special help".
From the beginning a local focal point was needed. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State recognised that need in his constituency, because he played a major role in setting up his local enterprise agency—one of the first to be established.
When my hon. Friend was appointed to his present position in 1983, his first priority was to expand the local enterprise agency network throughout the country. He pinned a great deal of hope for the overall small firms strategy on the local enterprise agency movement. That has undoubtedly been a considerable success and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for that. Will he tell us the up-to-date figure of enterprise agencies, the number of jobs that they have created and the cost per job? Of course, the Government, again to their credit, have now

significantly increased their commitment to enterprise agencies. Will my hon. Friend also say something about the success rate of small firms under local enterprise agencies as opposed to those that start up in a non-local enterprise agency environment?
That is the national scene, but the scene in my constituency is important because it is a microcosm of what has happened nationally as we have recently had set up a successful local enterprise agency. When I became the Member of Parliament for Norfolk, North-West three or four years ago, it had a diversified industrial base, but, because of four large plant closures and the general reduction in agricultural labour unemployment was above the regional average. Now unemployment is mercifully on its way down. It is down to just under 12 per cent., and there is every possibility that it will continue to go down because real jobs are being created.
It is interesting that during the past five years every time unemployment has either marked time or once or twice gone up slightly, my political opponents have gone on to the offensive. They have attacked me, and I can understand why. When the last set of very good figures came out, which showed an underlying decline in long-term unemployment in my constituency, the Labour party, to its credit, shared my cautious optimism, but the alliance showed itself in its true colours.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Where are they?

Mr. Bellingham: Although I said that I was cautiously optimistic, alliance Members attacked me. They have shown what they are about, because to them a fall in unemployment is thoroughly bad news. They have shown that they care only about scoring political points. No alliance Members are here tonight, because they do not care about local enterprise agencies or small businesses.
I saw that there was considerable scope on the small firms front, because Norfolk people have always been self-sufficient, independent and gregarious. There was already a strong small firms base, but we needed to ensure a greater success rate and also that the right advice was available. I decided that I had two big priorities. First, I had to do everything I could to assist the small firms sector and, secondly, to do what I could to back the borough council's campaign to improve communications.
Communications fit into the general economic pattern of what has been going on locally. We in Norfolk are fortunate enough to have a railway link to London, a strong industrial base, a growth in population, in tourism and in the small firms sector, and we are not very far from Cambridge where there has been a phenomenal increase in high tech companies. We believe that if we had a fast, modern and efficient railway link to London, many more people would use it and it would boost the economic prospects of west Norfolk. British Rail is electrifying the line from London to Cambridge. It would be an obvious extension of that programme to electrify it from Cambridge to King's Lynn. It is a chicken and egg position, because British Rail says that the link must be considered in terms of economic viability. It is doing a feasibility study at present. It has said that it is not too happy about the number of passengers using the line at present, but if British Rail provided us with a fast, efficient and modern service, people would use it. There is evidence from examples elsewhere in the country that if a service is improved it will attract business people, tourists and others.
The other important aspect of our communications campaign is the trunk roads. King's Lynn has always been a communications centre where three major roads converge—the A10, the A17, and, above all, the A47, which is our main link with the west and the midlands and the motorway and dual carriageway national network. King's Lynn is also the gateway to east Anglia, which is really the gateway to Europe. That is shown by the recent figures from the port of King's Lynn which is now in the hands of Associated British Ports. Since it was privatised, along with numerous other ports, its attitude has changed enormously. It is now one of the most go-ahead small ports in the country and is already breaking new tonnage records.
A combination of that and our diversified industrial base, and the growth in tourism, means that there is tremendous pressure on the trunk road network. I and the borough council have told the Department that new bypasses should be dual carriageway if at all possible. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport who has responsibility for roads and traffic came to west Norfolk the other day and said that he would consider each project on its merits. The good news is that since April the Department of Transport has changed its criteria for assessing whether a trunk road should be a dual carriageway or not. The traffic flows which decide whether a road will be a dual carriageway have been reduced. That is good news for all busy trunk roads, particularly the A47 and A17, the main arteries that feed northern east Anglia and west Norfolk in particular.
It is interesting that in the 1970 White Paper on roads, the A17 and A47 were scheduled to become dual carriageways. A few years later the Government of the day went cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund and major cuts were made in programmes across the board. One of the biggest victims of those cuts was the national trunk road programme. At that stage the A47 and A17 lost their chance to become dual carriageways in the immediate future.
This Government, on the other hand, have increased expenditure on national roads every year that they have been in office. During the past three years there has been an increase in real terms. When the Minister visited us, he said that £82 million is being or is programmed to be spent on roads into and in west Norfolk. That is exceptionally good news. The Minister agreed with us that he must look at every scheme on its merits, and we urged him to consider dual carriageways carefully for those particular schemes. If we can obtain a trunk road network with a significant number of dual carriageways it will greatly improve our economic prospects and at the same time boost the small firms sector.
When I first became a Member of Parliament, I saw tremendous potential for improving and boosting the small firms base. I also realised that there was a danger, because if one did not try hard to improve communications, a lot of the effort on the small firms front could be in vain. There was a definite need for a local focal point.
My hon. Friend the Minister came to my constituency not once or twice but three times in his first year and a half in office. He made it clear that he felt strongly that there was a definite need for a local enterprise agency. His first visit coincided with Sir Charles Villiers coming to address the local chamber of trade and commerce. As a result of his first meeting and Sir Charles Villiers' meeting, the chamber of trade and commerce, greatly to its credit,

picked up the ball, started running with it and set up a steering committee under the chairmanship of a well-known local business man, Martin Crannis, and at that stage John Storrs was president of the local chamber of trade and commerce. They seized the initiative, and a great deal of hard work and effort went into the preparatory stages of setting up the local enterprise agency. An enormous amount of work is required. One of the heartening aspects of this local enterprise agency, the West Norfolk Local Enterprise Agency Trust, was that the borough council of King's Lynn and west Norfolk decided to become involved. It was always supportive. Some people may say that it is a mistake to get the local authority too involved in the setting up of an enterprise agency. That may well be the case in some areas, but in this instance the borough council was supportive from the word go.
When one has a pro-small business, pro-enterprise council with people running it who are also pro-small business, one finds that that local authority can provide the extra impetus that is often essential to get an enterprise agency off the ground. That is exactly what happened in west Norfolk, because in the final run-up to the launch, the borough council took an even more active role and appointed the chairman of its land and estates committee, Councillor Jeremy Bagge, to chair the steering committee, and he was the chairman designate of the enterprise agency. In all of this he was fully supported by the chief executive of the borough council, Mr. John McGhee.
Four highly ambitious aims were set out: to find 50 sponsors who would each put up £500 at the rate of £250 per year for two years; to acquire a set of offices in the centre of town; to find a secondee from a top firm; and to get a VIP to come and open the enterprise agency early this year. We succeeded beyond our wildest dreams in all those aims. Not only did we find 50 sponsors, of which I am proud to be one, but people were queueing up to become sponsors. We found an excellent set of offices in the middle of town and got a secondee from the NatWest bank, Geoff Sturgeon. Although the Minister kindly offered to open the enterprise agency, I have to tell him that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales got there first.
There was always the danger that we would not live up to these high expectations, but we have had total success in achieving our initial aims and in getting the agency off the ground. People were waiting to see whether it would live up to all the expectations, and, just one year on, over 500 people have come for consultations. One third of those people were unemployed. So far 50 have started up new businesses. We have estimated that, as a result of this new local enterprise agency, over 100 new jobs have been created.
It is easy to say that when a plant closes 300 to 400 people will be thrown on to the dole, but many of those jobs would not have been created if it were not for this local enterprise agency. The firms that have been created will get hands-on advice, and because of that they will have a far better chance of survival than would otherwise be the case. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that when he is winding up.
After only one year, the West Norfolk Local Enterprise Agency Trust is seen as the local focal point for help and advice for small businesses. It is seen by those who want to start a business or who seek advice as the place to which to go. We must maintain the present effort because there


will be an ever-increasing need for more hands-on advice for businesses that have started up as a result of help from this local enterprise agency.
There will also be a need for Geoff Sturgeon and his team to come back to some of the original clients to ask how their business plans have materialised and what new ideas they have. That is because one of the roles of a local enterprise agency is to tell people in fairly harsh terms that their business plans do not strike the right balance and that they should go away and do more work on them. Perhaps they need to be told to find another partner. I hope that Geoff Sturgeon and his team will contact some of their original clients and ask how their ideas and plans are progressing.
I should like our local enterprise agency and perhaps every such agency to play a greater role in helping existing small firms. There are many small firms employing, perhaps, between two and 30 people, and from time to time such firms run into difficulties, but their owners are too proud or too busy to look for assistance to people other than their solicitors or bank managers. People in those firms now know about the existence of this enterprise agency and I hope that they will come and visit it from time to time and, if need be, seek advice.
One of the main projects for next year is the setting up of the managed workshop scheme. This may sound fairly ambitious, but one of the main items discussed when people come for consultation is premises. Councillor Jeremy Bagge, the chairman of the West Norfolk Local Enterprise Agency Trust, feels very strongly that, if he could have under his control a managed workshop complex, he would be able to put some of the better and most promising clients straight into that complex and they would be linked up very closely with the enterprise agency. Perhaps the Minister could comment again on the concept of these managed workshop complexes and how they operate elsewhere in the country.
We are thinking also in the longer term of setting up a locally based business expansion scheme fund. At the same time links with the small firms service, with the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas, and with other bodies, especially the Norfolk college of art and technology, and the local further educational college, are most important. They are being extended and looked at all the time and hopefully improved. This enterprise agency has been a great success. It is a microcosm of what has happened elsewhere in the country. The whole enterprise agency movement is one of the Government's great success stories. It may be that we have not said enough about it or sung it from the roof tops as we should have done. We now have a national network. The links of these enterprise agencies are growing all the time, cultivating improved and close relationships with local authorities, the small firms service and with other bodies, particularly in the towns and bigger cities where there are urban development commissions.
There has been a significant expansion also in the enterprise allowance scheme. That is another reason why I think the enterprise agencies will have an enhanced role. I saw in The Times yesterday that Ministers are planning a 25 per cent. increase in the enterprise allowance scheme and are to boost it by another 75,000 places. If so, that is very good news indeed. Many of the applicants on the enterprise allowance scheme will need the right kind of

advice. Now, because of the national network of enterprise agencies, they will know exactly where to go to. Certainly in west Norfolk, anyone contemplating setting up on that scheme will be directed by the jobcentre to the local enterprise agency. There will be a natural link-up between them. It has been a tremendous success story. During the past six or seven years a significant number of new jobs have been created as a result of local enterprise agencies, and they have played a crucial role in combating unemployment.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) for raising the role of local enterprise agencies, albeit so early in the morning. It is important, even at this time of the day, to discuss a matter that is close to all our hearts. The Opposition are in favour of enterprise, but I ask the House to bear with me while I examine the background of enterprise under a Conservative Government before I talk more specifically about how successful the Government have been in stimulating local enterprise and enterprise agencies. We are all in favour of enterprise, but the Government have been more in favour of it as a public relations smokescreen or as an advertising agency's buzz word than as a genuine enthusiasm for the qualities that created the wealth of the country during the past few centuries.
Enterprise in Britain, under the Conservatives, has become associated not with genuine hard work, with the entrepreneur, or with manufacturing industry, but with the smart-alec deal in the City of London, with asset-stripping, with needless wasteful takeovers, and with the growth of American enterprise over British enterprise. It has not been associated with the genuine process of wealth creation, where British workers and management come together with the aim of meeting the twin challenges of the market—providing the goods that people want at the prices that they can pay, around the world and at home, and changing technology. Britain must meet those two challenges and create wealth. The Government have answered neither challenge.
Under this Government, we have seen the collapse of British enterprise, not just small enterprise but large and medium-sized enterprise. We have seen a record number of bankruptcies. For the first time, we have imported more manufactured goods than we have exported—not just in one year, but year after year, we are importing more from abroad than we export. That is a course for national suicide in a manufacturing and wealth-creating nation. Such problems did not arise under any Government since the industrial revolution, but they have under this Government. While the Government's macro-economic policies have laid waste the economy, they have introduced a stream of palliatives and placebos to gull the public into believing that they are nevertheless committed to enterprise.
The backdrop of the operation of Government policy, certainly under the present Administration and the present Secretary of State for Employment, is gimmick after gimmick and small initiative after small initiative. Not all of them are bad. There is nothing wrong with local enterprise agencies. There is nothing wrong with a range of programmes that try to get small business going again after the devastation has been wreaked upon them. But there is every difference between a genuine commitment to


enterprise, to job creation, to cutting the waste of unemployment and a series of schemes with little money, spread very thin, around the country when we have 4 million people unemployed. Manufacturing industry has collapsed in many constituencies.
The facts of the matter are that the Government's response has been absolutely pitiful. It was completely inadequate to help the desperate needs, the collapse in manufacturing industry, job losses and rising unemployment. Listening to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West one would not believe that we had nearly 4 million unemployed—4·5 million, if the Government had not fiddled the figures time after time. In some parts of the nation it is common to find 25 per cent. or more male unemployment. That is unacceptable, but it is the background that provides the reality, which overshadows the pathetic range of responses from the Government.
It is difficult to ascertain the contribution that the local enterprise agencies have made. The hon. Member has introduced this debate and later on Tuesday he will be asking a question of the Paymaster General to ascertain how many enterprises have been set up under any of the Government's policies. I shall be interested to hear the Paymaster General's response. The Official Report shows that, time after time, when the Secretary of State or the Paymaster General are asked how many jobs local enterprise has created, they say that they cannot really say. They do not really know how many local enterprise agencies there are. The list of agencies in the Library shows that many organisations are duplicated. The greatest number that I have seen reported is 326.

Mr. Bellingham: Surely one of the reasons why it is difficult to obtain immediate statistics is that there is a significant increase in the number of small firms that are being set up. Some firms do fail, but there is a record net increase in small business and firms that are setting themselves up in business. That fact cannot be disputed.

Mr. Sheerman: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a great expert on business. He is a barrister at law and a member of Lloyd's. He is associated with property and, I believe, horses. I am talking about manufacturing industry and genuine service industry that provide jobs, which I believe are important from wherever they come. I represent an industrial constituency that has had its fair share of the devastation brought about by the Government's unemployment policies.
The facts speak for themselves. Since 1979, when the Government came to power, we have seen a decline in industrial output of 25 per cent. and a decline in Britain's ability to create wealth. When there is mass unemployment and a range of schemes that encourage the unemployed to become self-employed, we see a growth in the number of small businesses and self-employed. That is a fact of life, but I challenge whether that sort of growth and response is anywhere near adequate to meet the devastation that we see under the Government's policies.
The Government provide booklet after booklet and scheme after scheme, but little hard cash is made available. I ask the Minister how many local enterprise agencies are in the network and how much cash is provided to them beyond the pathetic £2·5 million grant scheme which was announced earlier this year? How effective has the loan guarantee scheme been in helping local enterprise? I expect that the Minister will point to examples, and perhaps even

to my constituency. I do not need him to tell me that in the Huddersfield area there is the Kirkless Venture Trust. That is more to the credit of the local chamber of commerce and Keith Welton, the director of that enterprise, than to the Government's policies.
Local enterprise needs to be local and it needs to be based on a genuine participation between the Govennment, local government and local enterprise. As we have seen the Government's attempts to stimulate local enterprise agencies, so we have seen the Government cynically attempting to destroy the foundations of local democracy. We must balance what has been added to enterprise and enterprise agencies by giving a little—as I said, £2·5 million was announced earlier this year in the form of a grant scheme—as opposed to the destruction that has been wrought by a Government who have sought to destroy local government and the local enterprise that it supports.
With the Government's legislation that abolished the metropolitan counties, we saw the destruction of a range of initiatives and programmes that were successfully creating small business, small enterprise and co-operatives. They were doing a job that increasingly was becoming something of which to be proud. The Minister will know that local government enterprise initiatives have been more successful than central Government enterprise initiatives. They have provided jobs more cheaply and more effectively—for three reasons.
First, they put in more commitment. Secondly, they know more about their local patch. Thirdly, they base their local operation—surprising as it may be to the Government—on a genuine participation between the public and private sectors. Wherever we see a local government that has a radical policy towards combating unemployment by setting up enterprise through agencies and stimulating enterprise at every level, we see success, and at a low price.
Central Government weakens the basis of operation of local government. Time and again we see rate capping, for example through the abolition of the metropolitan counties, and every kind of strategy that the Government can devise. Decent, genuine local enterprise agencies run by local authorities have been hampered and destroyed. Some of the boldest and most imaginative schemes have come out, of local government. Why was the hon. Gentleman a Minister when those initiatives were stifled? Local enterprise and small business are of vital importance. Opposition Members say, "Do not let us get it out of perspective." The macro-economic picture is a dismal one. Whatever the Government may come up with in terms of numerous small policies with small money, it is small beer in terms of the challenge that the country faces.
After the next election, the incoming Labour Government will ensure that there is genuine partnership between the public and private sectors and between national democracy and local democracies. A Labour Government will ensure that the right macro-economic climate exists for all businesses—large, medium and small—to grow and to employ people.
The hour is late, so I shall not detain the House any longer. I hope that the Minister will answer some of the questions that the country asks about genuine job creation and genuine enterprise stimulation.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) on introducing this important and interesting subject of enterprise agencies, and, furthermore, on the eloquence with which he did so and explained the beneficent effects on north-west Norfolk.
I was disappointed but not surprised by the thoroughly curmudgeonly attitude of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) to the debate. I have seldom heard a more negative contribution. It was thoroughly, destructively, negative. At one stage I thought that he had gone on to auto-pilot. The phrases ground out one after the other. They trickled out in a magnificent stew. They were tried and tested old friends—

Mr. Michael Cocks: There is no one in the Press Gallery. Get on with it.

Mr. Shepherd: If the right hon. Gentleman would like it, there is breakfast outside, and he can come back in a few minutes.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield is a member of a party whose Government ended up, come 1979, presiding over the most highly institutionalised, rigid and unimaginative industry that this country has seen. I am from small industry; a small business. That is my background. That is the base from which I like to look at things.
In 1979, we had massively hidden overemployment. All sorts of companies were carrying labour that they eventually recognised they could not afford. They had to make the necessary investment, which they had been discouraged from doing by previous policies, and it led inevitably to a shake-out of employment. That is the point at which I began to become worried.
In 1982 I said to all the leading employers in my constituency over the telephone, "Let's face it. With your investment programmes, your main interest is losing people because you can't afford to have the people and the investment." All the companies concurred with that view. I said, "You can do something about that. If you put people out because of the investment that you have been encouraged to carry out, you can help towards setting up an enterprise agency to encourage the formation of new business." I am pleased to say that a substantial number of them said yes.
Therefore, back in December 1982, we had the first of a series of meetings, accompanied by various bank managers, the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas and representatives from the two local authorities involved. Members of industry came together under my initial chairmanship and discussed the setting up of an enterprise agency. As a consequence, we got an enterprise agency steering committee, and in 1983 my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary came to open the agency.
That is three years ago. I do not know to what extent my hon. Friend has been able to keep tabs on progress. The enterprise agency has been responsible for helping into existence—I think that that is the right way round to put it—90 new businesses, which is a conservative and cautious estimate. They are now up and flying. It is not just a matter of how many have gone out of the door, put down their money and started trading. These are the ones that the director of the enterprise agency considers

are viable—I hate that word, and the next word—ongoing, businesses. They are working according to their business plan and doing a good job.
Furthermore, another 200 businesses would not be in business now if it were not for the counselling advice from the enterprise agency. That is a magnificent contribution towards employment, the employment so sneeringly dismissed by the hon. Member for Huddersfield—

Mr. Sheerman: No.

Mr. Shepherd: I feel that it was sneeringly dismissed. He says that it does not matter and that it is irrelevant. To Herefordshire, it is relevant, it matters. Many others have not got into trouble because their shaky business proposals have been examined and analysed. They have been told that a certain course of action will lead to disaster. Many people who may not be in business now have cause to be thankful to the enterprise agency because they have avoided financial disaster. Consequently, there is a lower rate of business failures. That is good news. I pay tribute to the manner is which the director has put together a tight organisation and to his staff. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West said, some people who are overawed by the big faceless agencies can talk over their business problems with the enterprise agency.
Alas, nothing comes without its problems. It is a pity that the biggest problem of such an exciting activity is the need to overcome the suspicion of existing businesses that, if they help, they will somehow cut their own throats by spawning competition. This is a sad, human point, but it is important. It is true that there is an element of justification in it. Our enterprise agency has found that about one in 40 businesses are capable of being considered as competitive with other businesses. It is a reasonable chance for a business to take—a one in 40 chance that it will not spawn competition.
Most businesses like to think of themselves as lean, efficient and effective, so what have they to fear from competition? Only if they are slack does the market give rise to the slot for competition. If businesses are tight and lean, there will not be that market opportunity. They might not, therefore, need to worry too much but they must look to their laurels.
Surely the crunch is that every business needs suppliers as well as customers. Each new business brings with it new opportunities for supply by existing businesses, even if it is only to the extent of greater spending power by consumers in the locale—for the bigger companies—or a lower rate of unemployment, and therefore greater activity in the economy. I must confess to being disappointed at the attitude of some well-established companies and businesses—large and small—which take a negative view. I sometimes feel that it is a case of "Pull up the trapdoor, Jack, I am all right." That is a pity. More and wider economic activity must be in the long-term interests of everyone. Enterprise agencies are good value for money, the more so when the money comes predominantly from the private sector. I tremble in my boots at the concept of this enforced partnership between the public and the private sectors. The organic partnership is that which originated in the private sector and which is participated in by the public sector, but never dominated by it, because that is when the dead hand of Socialism takes over.

Mr. Sheerman: Who is on auto-pilot now?

Mr. Shepherd: I thought that hon. Members might like to hear what auto-pilot was about. An enterprise agency should be a facilitating agency, the emphasis being on the word "agency". An agent is one who does something for another.
I have some worries. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West on one point, as I palpably do with the hon. Member for Huddersfield. Enterprise agencies should be in the business not of procuring or managing workshop space or offering training courses but of pointing people towards workshop space and the training to their requirements. If one follows the other course, the enterprise agency becomes a self-perpetuating monster—an enterprise built for its own sake. An enterprise agency's real value is that it keeps close to the grass roots of industry, and does not lose its persepective as it starts, in effect, to build up a business of its own. Some inner city agencies have almost become businesses in their own right, except that invoices are never raised, with nerve-racking false economies and inefficiencies creeping in, not to mention the even more worrying siren calls for more money that we have heard again today. The purpose of an enterprise agency is to be a facilitator, not a creator in its own right.

Mr. Sheerman: The need is not just for more money, because the scale of the problem is so great, but for more commitment as well if enterprise agencies are to work. At present there are only 166 secondees from industry. Does the hon. Gentleman really think that that is sufficient to put British enterprise back on the rails?

Mr. Shepherd: I take the point to some extent, but everything does not lie with secondees. We were fortunate enough to start with a secondee, but we found our own director whom we now fund and pay. That director is remarkably good and I have no doubt that when the time comes we shall be able to find another. So everything need not hang on secondees, although a super job has been done in promoting them. Other people can be found.
The purpose of enterprise agencies is not to build empires but to help other people. Rivers are made out of raindrops, so let us not worry about the number of enterprise agencies. Let us just have a few more and start building a few rivers. In the task of helping, enterprise agencies need to be the creatures of the business community, not institutions provided by it. As I have said, they need comparatively small amounts of money. That does not mean that matching finance from the Government is not warmly welcomed, but the need is not so much for more cash as for a wider base of business interest and understanding to bring in the 50 quids and 100 quids in subscription support and provide the healthly base of operations that is so important.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider this carefully, as it is a matter of the way in which he deploys resources. The need is to generate far greater enthusiasm in the business community. To that end, perhaps he will consider the production of another booklet along the lines of "Action for Jobs" setting out both sides of the task of an enterprise agency in terms of basic principles. I hope that he will also promote the use of public service television slots. I do not see why commercial television companies should not be approached on a national or regional basis, as they could help a great deal, rather as Central Television does with its job-finder service

in the west midlands. Those slots could be used to make it clear that the friendly local enterprise agency is a good place to go for help if one is feeling nervous or one's business seems shaky. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West said, that would help in the process of communications and understanding. It would get the message across that the enterprise agency is able and willing to help, in absolute confidence, existing businesses as well as new start-ups.
There is an immense range of activities, but enterprise agencies do not have massive resources for self-promotion. It is the concept which is so desirable and which should be promoted. That is where my hon. Friend the Minister could be very helpful at remarkably low cost—and to good effect in terms of developing employment.

6 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Trippier): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) for instigating this debate. The House will be grateful to him for playing such a significant part in forming an enterprise agency in his constituency, which he was kind enough to say that I had been associated with in the early stages. I expected to be invited to open it, but when I heard that my hon. Friend had invited the Prince of Wales I quickly stepped back. I know my place.
I was amazed when my hon. Friend told me in the Library that he had invited no less a person than the Prince of Wales, who accepted shortly afterwards. That was in the early stages of the Prince of Wales' involvement with local enterprise agencies. Since then, he has become president of Business in the Community—the sponsoring umbrella organisation that is responsible for spawning and encouraging enterprise agencies. He has played a distinguished role in that capacity. A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of hearing the Prince of Wales speak at Pebble Mill on small firms. I was impressed by his speech and knowledge of enterprise agencies.
Perhaps it was fortunate, in view of the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West started by saying that the Labour Government did not seem to express any interest in the small firms scene. When the Conservatives came to power in 1979, we faced an uphill struggle trying to inject into the economy the enterprise and entrepreneurship, which everyone recognises in the economy now.
There was such a decline in the number of self-employed people under the Labour Government that it has taken us longer than it might to put matters right, to steer towards an enterprising economy, to stimulate small firms and to encourage more self-employment. My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the three significant schemes which have assisted the small firms sector more than anything else—the enterprise allowance scheme, the business expansion scheme and the loan guarantee scheme.
As a result of this Government's concentration on the small firms sector, we now have the highest level of self-employment for 60 years and the highest net increase in small businesses in recorded history. Before local enterprise agencies came along, people went to their local authorities, which the hon. Member for Huddersfield is so


fond of referring to, or the small firms service. That service was often regarded as remote, however, because it was based at regional level.
Local authorities were often regarded as too bureaucratic. It did not matter one jot which party they were controlled by. I have manifestly failed to convince the hon. Member for Huddersfield on that score. People in business regard government, whether national or local, as the unacceptable face of bureaucracy.

Mr. Sheerman: No.

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman is quick to draw attention to the professions of those who speak in debates on small firms and enterprise and professes to know much about them. The hon. Gentleman must learn that people engaged in business would rather talk to other industrialists and professional advisers than to politicians like us, my officials, civil servants or even local government officers. That has been recognised, not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West but my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), who has played a significant part in starting his local enterprise agency. Indeed, I had the privilege to open it officially. I pay warm tribute to him. He played the same role as I played in my constituency when I was pleased to pull together leading industrialists who recognise the importance of this exercise in self-help—the community pulling itself up by the boot straps. The success is there for all to see.
By referring to the small firms service as I have I am not saying that it has not an important role to play. The trick is to improve the interface between the small firms service and local enterprise agencies, so that they both have a role with the specialist in the small firms service being made available to directors of LEAs. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West has a secondee from the National Westminster bank. That is how we started in Rossendale. Indeed, the same bank was good enough to second a director to two of us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford pointed out that that is not necessarily the way people wish to continue. The beauty of LEAs is that it is up to the boards to decide what they want. No two will be the same, because no two communities are the same. The board may decide on continuity and to have the director perhaps full-time under contract for a long period, and even a deputy director. That practice is certainly growing and is well and good.
I will not get involved in the discussion and, perhaps, slight disagreement between my two hon. Friends on the management of small workshops, because I have seen it work effectively where LEAs have decided to do it, where local authorities have gone to the LEA and asked it to do that, and where the private sector has built the managed work shops and the LEAs have provided the essential hand-holding service for sheltered work shops. That is fine. One should in no way rubbish that.
I may have to convince my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford, who has a considerable number of LEAs, that the Government have decided that the LEAs will be so much of a one-stop shop—more than we ever dreamt when we tried to set up LEAs in our constituency—that they are seen as the best providers of management training. Certainly, they have the signposting role. I would

rather it were in their hands, as I am sure my hon. Friend would, than in the hands of different bodies which may seem too bureaucratic.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield stands shoulder to shoulder with me in recognising the importance of a partnership between the public and private sectors. The difference between the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends and I is that he wants the public sector to be in the lead, whereas we want the private sector to be in the lead. We believe that the private sector does the job a darn sight better, is closer to the "coal face", and understands the needs of small businesses. That political difference is not merely a crack; it is a yawning chasm which I see growing ever wider as time passes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West asked me how many LEAs there are at present, to which the answer is 354. None of us ever dreamt that the figure would reach that. I am grateful to him for the nice things he said about me when I set the target of 300 when I came to this office in June 1983. Many of us have surprised ourselves, including Business in the Community. It is truly remarkable. The failure rate of those firms that have been assisted by enterprise agencies dropped to 1:12 over a period of three years contrasted with a failure rate of 1:3 over the same period for normal, conventional businesses not receiving assistance.
The cost per job has been estimated by Business in the Community, and I emphasise that, because it is extremely difficult on occasion for the Government to do that. In certain assisted areas and because of certain grants that may have been used by small firms, it is difficult for the Government to assess the cost per job. However, Business in the Community has calulated the figure at about £600 to £700 per job. That contrasts with the £700 cost per job under the loan guarantee scheme. That is interesting, although it is probably coincidental. The Government's loan guarantee scheme, at £700 per job, is the cheapest and most cost-effective scheme in the Department of Employment. It contrasts favourably with the enterprise allowance scheme that we regard as the jewel in our crown.
I listened carefully to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford in connection with transport and communications problems. Despite the fact that my hon. Friend has recently received an official visit from my hon. Friend the junior Minister in the Department of Transport, I would be happy to alert that Department again to his vociferous arguments. My hon. Friend has always been a very able advocate on behalf of his constituents in relation to small firms and improved communications and I will make his point at the Department.
I was interested to hear my hon. Friend's comments about Mr. Geoff Sturgeon, the director. I must tell the House—and my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford would support me in this—that it is vitally important to get the right director. The board of governors or, as it is called in some cases, the board of directors, are very important. Without them and the sponsorship, there is no enterprise agency. We accept that, and I am grateful for the opportunity of being able to pay a warm tribute to these people in different communities helping enterprise agencies throughout the country.
The key person is the director, some of whom are called managing directors, and others chief executives. He has the day-to-day contact with the important people whom we are all seeking to encourage. I recall that I was greatly


influenced by the first director of an enterprise agency, Mr. Bill Humphrey in St. Helens, whom I have always regarded as the patron saint of enterprise agencies. It was one of my greatest privileges, as the Minister responsible for small firms, to introduce Mr. Humphrey to the 300th enterprise agency director in west Lancashire. Mr. Humphrey could hardly believe it himself. He has set such a superb example that has been followed by many different people and that is an amazing tribute. We owe him a debt of gratitude that can be never repaid.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West referred to the wider role for the agency in general terms. I have referred to that with regard to the managed work shops. If the board of governors of the agency in the area thinks that that is appropriate and that it can handle it, then it should go for it. My hon. Friend said that he thought that it was ambitious, and it is after being in existence for only just over 12 months. However, that is the kind of challenge to which most enterprise agencies are now rising and I am sure that they are up to it.
I was especially glad that my hon. Friend referred to the new initiative of the locally based business expansion scheme. That is so important. We need to encourage the investment from localities under the business expansion scheme into funds where money in the amounts of about £50,000 is going to the smaller firms rather than the huge amounts of money perhaps being invested through the City of London in excess of £100,000 and being confined to the immediate London area. The regional aspect of the funds is extremely attractive and is something that we must encourage.
I shall consider the idea of a booklet suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford. It has great merit. We are perhaps bringing out too many booklets for the

hon. Member for Huddersfield. They are coming out at an amazing rate. The most important booklet is "Action for Jobs", which the hon. Member for Huddersfield displayed in the House this morning. I am grateful to him for doing that.
I was fascinated to hear the contribution of the hon. Member for Huddersfield. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford that his comments were incredibly negative. I was fascinated by the fact that he ended his speech by saying that it was early in the morning and ended by saying that it was late at night. I was not certain whether he knew where he was or what time it was. However, I was grateful to him for saying that some of the initiatives of myself and my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State were to be welcomed. That is pretty fair. Perhaps we might have to ignore the hon. Member for Huddersfield in this. I might be biased towards the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford when I consider what I thought was a constructive suggestion to produce such a booklet.
The idea of using television wherever possible to push local enterprise agencies to make clear at community level that the hand-holding service is available is a first-class idea. I encourage television in the independent sector to take advantage of that facility.
Finally, I take the opportunity of thanking the companies — there are so many of them now — which have been kind enough to support local enterprise agencies, not all of them large although the bulk of them supporting BIC are large. I also pay a warm tribute to hon. Members who have played a significant part in helping the local enterprise agency movement to become such a success.

Orders of the Day — Office of Fair Trading

Mr. Michael Cocks: If I get as fulsome a reply from the Minister as the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), I shall be extremely pleased.
I wish to draw the House's attention to the role and responsibilities of the operation of the Office of Fair Trading in relation to what are commonly known as loan sharks. They often take advantage of people who do not understand what is going on and make Shylock in the "Merchant of Venice" look like Santa Claus. Those people, who exploit others, not only charge high interest rates with an annual percentage rate sometimes over 1,000 per cent. but encourage people to roll up loans and take out further loans in order to try to meet their repayments. They are guilty of inaccurate book-keeping of the loan terms—I say inaccurate, not inadvertent—and of not keeping proper account to the borrower of repayments.
There are extremely dubious collection tactics, rought threatening approaches, threats, not only physical violence, but non-existent court orders, and breaches of the code about calling at people's homes. There is also the appropriation of benefit books in order to take the proceeds when accompanying the claimant to the local post office.
When this matter was first raised locally recently, I was approached by a number of people in the press and broadcasting about the allegations, but they are nothing new. In a July 1983 press release Sir Gordon Borrie, the Director General of Fair Trading, drew attention to moneylenders who charge excessive rates of interest, take family allowance or supplementary benefit books as security and resort to aggressive methods. Sir Gordon Borrie said:
I deplore the activities of these 'loan sharks' who prey on the very people who can least afford to fall into their clutches.
Then he referred to the cycle of debt into which they fall and gave some examples.
In reporting the director-general's statement, The Times announced that war had been declared on the loan sharks. I fear that it was a phoney war. It was similar to what happened between September 1939 and the spring of 1940. I do not wish to be party political, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall not introduce, as an aside, the fact that had it not been for the good sense of the Scandinavian countries, at one time the Conservative Government of the day would have gone to war not only with Germany but with the Soviet Union. This war was so phoney that in 1985 the annual report of the Director General of Fair Trading contained the following paragraph:
Cases involving moneylenders continue to arise. Abuses included: getting customers to sign uncompleted agreements; `re-loaning' without making borrowers fully aware of their additional obligations; failing to provide copies of agreements; improperly taking social security and child benefit books; and failing to make the rate of interest or the annual percentage rate of charge clear.
That has continued, and the widespread misery that it causes surfaced recently in Bristol.
A local councillor, to whom I shall refer again, drew my attention to the problem. I pay tribute to the Bristol Evening Post, the local evening newspaper, which ran a series of articles on the problem. Reporting on 20 November, David Baxter said that I intended to ask

questions in the House, that I should like detailed information from borrowers who are in the clutches of these sharks and that I should treat all information in confidence. The article stated that I had said that this would be difficult for the borrowers concerned but that they would be doing a great public service by giving me the evidence that I needed to highlight the issue.
Another outstanding article appeared in the Bristol Evening Post. That newspaper has been assiduous in pursuing the matter, but the response to the appeal for information was not good. That is a point to which I shall return later.
The councillor who first drew my attention to this problem has provided a very interesting piece of evidence. Councillor Vernon Hicks, who represents the Filwood ward in Bristol, where I live, is most assiduous; he knows the area very well and he has come across this problem. However, he says that it is extremely difficult to obtain evidence. He is particularly concerned about attempts to persuade council house tenants to take out finance to purchase their homes. I tabled several questions to various Departments, to which I received fairly bland replies. I shall weary the House with a few of them. I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment
if he will request local authorities to take steps to prevent private loan companies from operating on their housing estates to pressurise tenants into taking out loans with them to exercise their right to buy their houses; and if he will make a statement.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment replied:
No: council tenants must be free to take their own decisions about borrowing, but they should, of course, think carefully whether they can afford to buy".
That was a lemon, if I may put it that way.
I asked the Paymaster General
if he will take steps to seek to protect recipients of unemployment benefit from the activities of private loan companies.
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment replied:
I have received no complaints on this subject.
The Secretary of State for Wales gave a fairly bland reply when I asked him if he would do anything about asking local authorities in the Principality to prevent private loan companies from operating on its housing estates. He replied:
No. Council tenants with the right to buy their homes must be allowed to take their own decisions". — [Official Report, 27 October 1986; Vol. 103, c. 68–71.]
That bears a remarkable identity to the question that I have just read out. So it goes on. There was no movement from the Government on those questions.
Last Sunday I called in to see Councillor Hicks, because he has been the subject of much abuse in an anonymous campaign which is being waged against him. I do not say that lightly, because the police are extremely worried about this case. Nevertheless, he has continued to do his best for the inhabitants in his ward. He has produced a leaflet which is very useful because it is the first real piece of evidence that I have. I have furnished the Minister with a copy, because it is important. The leaflet—a notice to all council house tenants—says:
Have you ever considered owning the house you live in? If you have, and have not purchased it there is obviously a very good reason … lack of information, not knowing how to go about it, or simply thinking you cannot afford it. You can afford it with no cash outlay whatsoever and no obligation. Interested? For further information telephone".


A telephone number in Bristol is given and there is a tear-off slip. The interesting thing about the leaflet, which I am sure the Minister will have already noticed, is that the upper part is in set-up type and is printed off, whereas the lower part has been done on a typewriter and is stencilled in. I do not think that that is the right word these days. That is a hangover from my days as a writer in the Navy many years ago. It is obviously done as a general leaflet, and then local details are added. Someone is operating on a much larger scale than in just one area. I ask the Minister to take that leaflet seriously because it was given to Councillor Hicks by a lady who lives probably about 100 yards away from my house in a road which consists of mainly council properties. She gave it to him at one of his advice centres. The lady said that it had come through her door. There had been a follow-up call by a man who asked her whether she was interested in the leaflet's proposals. She said no, but she then received a further call and was getting very anxious because she was elderly, lived alone and did not wish to be pestered over this matter.
Only this evening I received a phone call from a trading protection officer in Leicester telling me that the same thing was going on on council estates in Leicester and that people who had bought their houses were being pressured into taking out a second mortgage for various purposes. People who had bought the tenancy of the council house in which they had lived for a very long time suddenly ran into debt problems. They had a very heavy discount on the house, which of course is their right now. There are even cases of dispossession. So the sharks are getting a very cheap house and the people who were in it are adding to the council's housing problem. That is a serious problem of which we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg.
The people who are particularly preyed on by such sharks are the poorest in terms of the generally accepted standards of banks, finance houses and so on — low income groups, the unemployed, the elderly, pensioners and people who are unaware of their rights.
A report by the Policy Studies Institute issued in December 1983 on the 1980 reform of supplementary benefit found that in a sample which it took, 68 per cent. of claimants had to find money over and above their benefit, and of those in debt some 18 per cent. owed money for loans, and of that 18 per cent. three out of 10 had borrowed money from commercial lenders.
People who live at or near the poverty line have sudden and immediate needs for cash for items such as fuel, rent, food and emergencies which may arise. There is a nationwide debt problem because we are now substantially into the consumer credit era. In his 1986 report Sir Gordon Borrie referred to borrowing and the credit society. He dealt with why that situation has arisen and called for something to be done about the startling volume of consumer credit — £22 billion, leaving aside credit for house purchase. The size of the real debt rose 50 per cent. between 1981 and 1985. The average debt per household, excluding mortgage debt, exceeded £1,000 for the first time in 1984.
I shall not weary the House with too much detail, but Sir Gordon Borrie went on to call for more debt counselling, and that is a point that I hope to pursue later. It is extremely easy to obtain credit and, unfortunately, the people who fall into the hands of the sharks are not well versed in their rights. A particularly sad thing, which should be considered by the electricity boards, is that their high-pressure salesmanship — I do not know whether

that is a sexist word these days, but I am too old to change my ways — for appliances and their offer to put the repayments on the bill sometimes leads families to the point at which they cannot meet their electricity bill because of the payments for appliances, not the amount of current used. Therefore, such people find their supply cut off in the extreme, and that is a most unsatisfactory situation when, if it were simply a matter of current used, they might well be able to meet the bill.
In trying to find out about the extent of the problem I put down a further set of questions and was referred to the Office of Fair Trading, quite reasonably, by the Government. I asked how many money-lending licence applications had been issued and received in the current year, and other such questions. Some of the replies were interesting. Since 1974 some 70,000 licences have been issued.
The definition of who is a fit person under the Consumer Credit Act 1984 is perhaps a bit sloppy. There does not seem to be any real follow-up or investigation except in the case of specific complaints. What astonished me was this part of a reply from the Office of Fair Trading, a copy of which was sent to the Minister. It says:
Category A licences (permitting the holder to lend money for the purposes of consumer credit) are held by a wide variety of companies including banks, finance houses, pawnbrokers and retailers, as well as moneylenders. The way in which records are kept here does not make it possible to distinguish between these types of business".
It is astonishing that the Office of Fair Trading cannot distinguish between licences given to banks, finance houses, moneylenders and pawnbrokers. One wonders what state of organisation there is in the department. The letter goes on:
nor is it possible to break down licensees as between different geographical areas.
It goes on to say how many licences were issued from 1 January to 21 November 1986. The numbers supplied are not relevant to what I am saying. However, of 4,265 applications received, 3,949 licences were issued. I went on to ask about numbers suspended during the current year and how many were in the Bristol district council area. There were 70,000 extant category A licences, and of those six were revoked in the whole of the United Kingdom. In Bristol one was revoked. One licence was suspended in the whole of the United Kingdom and three applications were refused. In both of those categories there were no cases in Bristol.
I asked how many licences were issued under the Consumer Credit Act 1984, and I was told:
The number of Category A licences issued so far is over 70,000, but according to the Office's 'guesstimate', up to one third of all licences are no longer in use.
In other words, it is not even known whether 23,000 licences are still validly in use. that is not satisfactory. In a written question I asked the Minister
if he will review the law controlling the activities of private loan companies; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister is courteous enough to be here this morning. In reply to that question, he said:
The Consumer Credit Act 1974 provides both important safeguards for consumers who enter into credit agreements, and a system of licensing of loan companies, credit grantors, and credit brokers administered by the Director General of Fair Trading. Other laws provide additional protection in this area, particularly against harassment of debtors. I believe that existing legislation provides a comprehensive framework of protection for consumers but if the hon. Member is aware of undesirable practices not covered by


existing legal controls I should be willing to consider whether further action is desirable."—[Official Report, 27 October 1986; Vol. 103, c. 59.]
I appreciate his offer in the latter part of that answer, but I am trying to draw to the attention of the House the fact that undesirable practices are going on—practices that are supposed to be outlawed by existing legislation. It is in the implementation of that legislation that we come to the nub of the problem.
The person who approached me did so on the behalf of the Institute of Trading Standards and Administration. Mr. Babbs, from Leicester, rang me and said that one of the problems was that in July 1986 the Office of Fair Trading asked for an extension of the licence expiry time to 15 years. I shall not elaborate on this point, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) was intimately concerned in the passing of this legislation and I am sure that he would like to say something about it.
People in society who are least able to defend themselves, who are most susceptible to smooth talk and have most difficulty in reading small print, if even the small print exists, need more protection than is available. I suggest that a far more thorough clean-up is needed of the issuing of licences and, even more so, the follow-up of licences. A better debt counselling service is needed. The Minister will be aware that some towns are beginning to employ debt counsellors. There was even a meeting of the Money Advice Association in Sheffield in July 1986 which made that point. There is already one in Birmingham and a young lady in Bristol is doing very valuable work, but the service needs to be extended.
Sir Gordon Borrie's suggestion of a far greater education campaign should be taken up. Alternative sources should be considered for people on low incomes who need to borrow money to get over a period of temporary embarrassment and who have no proper security to offer such as would be demanded by a building society or a large bank. I ask the Government to consider this matter seriously. I believe in a mixed economy, but I also believe that there is a responsibility on us to try to provide some sort of safety net for people who are likely to fall into this difficulty. It is a nightmare that can bedevil a family for years, as the Minister will know from some of the examples provided by the Director General of Fair Trading. I ask the Minister to consider the plight of those people who fall into the clutches of these sharks.
Whilst I would not expect a solution tonight, the Minister may take heed of what I have said and come back with some proposals for trying to tighten up the mesh so that much better protection can be afforded to those members of our society who are least able to cope.

Mr. Alan Williams: I am grateful, as I think the House will be, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) for raising this debate. It was thought by hon. Members on both sides of the House that action had been taken to eliminate this problem in the early 1970s. I was in one of those interesting situations where, having shadowed the Consumer Credit Bill while in Opposition, it then fell at election, and I had an opportunity to take it on again in Government and modify it in certain respects and then take it through. In

that sense, at that stage in the 1970s there was a genuine consensus that the emergence of loan sharks had created enormous political and public concern, so much so that it was an incredibly complex Bill having 120 clauses, 23 schedules, and a language of its own. A special language training course was needed before going on the Committee stage of the Bill. Nevertheless, that was an indication of the complexity of a system that we were trying to deal with.
I suppose that it was inevitable that the Act would gradually be eroded by those who have an interest in getting round the provisions that were there to protect the consumer. As my right hon. Friend said, we live in a consumer society that is fuelled by the credit economy. The two go hand in hand. The growth of the Western consumer economy owes more to credit than to almost any other stimulus. I do not suggest that the use of credit is undesirable, but I believe that we need proper controls over the way in which credit is offered and marketed.
The sad fact is that what might have taken a long time —the erosion of some of the provisions of the Act—has been stimulated by the tragic circumstances of far too many people in recent years as their jobs have disappeared. I must say — I do not mean this in a political sense, although it will be seen in that way — that it is astonishing that, when the loan shark problem is emerging, the DHSS has decided to stop the special grants which, as we all know from constituency cases, have been necessary to many families. That has ensured that many people will be driven back, or many more people will be driven, into the hands of the loan sharks.
My right hon. Friend has done us a great service by researching the background so deeply. It is astonishing that the quality of information available to the Office of Fair Trading is so unrefined. I spoke to Sir Gordon Borrie about this issue several years ago. Despite modern computer and information techniques, we are told, as we have been by my right hon. Friend, that the Office of Fair Trading is incapable of sub-categorising sources of consumer credit. If my right hon. Friend is misleading the House, he is basing it on answers that he received. If it is true, it is astonishing and disturbing. Similarly, the same is true of the geographic breakdown. It would be useful to have available those pieces of information. With modern methods, it would not be especially expensive to have the information available if the basic system has been made available to the Office of Fair Trading.
Of course, one must make the point that the Office of Fair Trading is starved of staff and that it has been subject to cuts which have meant that the licensing system had to be delayed and also, as my right hon. Friend has said, the licences have had to be extended to reduce the work load.
It is similarly disturbing that one third of licences are currently not in use. It must be a function of the same manpower starvation at the Office of Fair Trading that it cannot give us an accurate figure and, furthermore, that there is no follow-up to try to revoke the licences that have lapsed in practice. In the long run, that would improve the quality of control. Secondly, it is fatuous to have as many as one third of 70,000 licences non-operational but still potentially live. The information is disturbing and it should be more than disturbing to Ministers, because it is three years since the director-general issued the press notice to which my right hon. Friend referred.
Under the Fair Trading Act, the Office of Fair Trading was given a special role in terms of collating information rather then dealing with it in individual cases. The


individual cases must be dealth with at local level. The role of the Office of Fair Trading is that of the collator of information at the national level, recommending changes to the Government. There seems, however, to have been little initiative, and we are dealing with some of the most rapacious of whose who lurk at the edge of criminality. We are talking of whose who are breaking the law. They are not conforming to consumer credit legislation and they are able to get away with that because as they are feeding the needs of the most needy groups in our society they are parasitically leeching on those who have least motivation to shop the guilty parties. That is because they know that they may need to go back to them for further loans. These people get into incredibly complex messes with the rolling up of loans and evidence is hard to come by, as I accept readily.
It is three years, however, since Sir Gordon Borne issued his warning, when he announced that action was needed and would be taken. I have great regard for Sir Gordon, whom I consider to be a sincere and genuine man who wants to do a good job at the Office of Fair Trading, and in general has done so. It must be said that it has a wide-ranging remit, but it seems incredible that with all the enforcement facilities that are at our disposal—they are inevitably over-stretched — we have not been able to come forward with more firm evidence against the practitioners.
My right hon. Friend was kind enough to pass me a copy of the advertisement which circulated in Bristol. It would be way outside anything acceptable under consumer credit legislation. The mere proposition of no cash outlay whatsoever is a singularly dubious advertisement to be offering in the context of the law as it stands. I have little doubt that if the enforcement authorities follow up the advertisement they will find a rather intricate mesh rather than a clear identification of the person who is responsible for the advertisement. I shall be intrigued to know what happens if the authorities try to pursue that person right along the line, or those who were responsible. It would be interesting to know what has been done to follow it up. Thanks to the local newspaper at Bristol and the publicity that it, my right hon. Friend and his councillor colleague have been able to give, the police seem to be trying to take action. However, as was indicated in the response from Leicester, that which is happening in Bristol is not an unusual phenomenon. I think that we must recognise that that which is happening in Bristol is happening also in every community throughout the country.
There need be no party conflict here or difference. None of us wants to see people milched and destroyed in the way that the loan sharks destroy their victims. An indication of the difficulties is that even a newspaper offering the advantages of anonymity and wanting only to collect information has not even had information from a telephone tip-off.

Mr. Michael Cocks: Even as late as last Saturday the Bristol Evening Post made a further appeal and mentioned that a debate would take place in the House. It asked for individuals to come forward anonymously, but that appeal has not produced anything, because those involved are too afraid to break silence.

Mr. Williams: Another worrying but interesting spinoff is that fear is backed by dependence. The councillor,

far from being praised for his activities, has found himself being threatened. Those who are trapped on 1,000 per cent. interest know that they may desperately need immediate cash in future and that the source may no longer be open to them.
Most of these people do not have telephones—we are talking about the most needy in the community—and the arrival in the letterbox of the electricity and gas bills can cause a moment of panic. We all know how unhappy we can be when we receive these bills. One has only to imagine what it is like if one lies at the edge of penury and these enormous bills drop through the letterbox, particularly after cold winters, when many people accumulate bills the scale of which they do not appreciate at the time.
We must ask the Government, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South has done, what they intend to do about the matter. Opposition Members will give all possible support to positive action. Three years on, and three years after the warning from OFT, it is fair to say that the Government should have some response at this time. It is good to hear that local authorities are to set up debt counsellors, and so on. That is highly desirable. One is forced—this comment is slightly political—to observe that the Conservative party abolished the consumer advice centres. The Labour Government established a network of them. They were abolished before the hon. and learned Gentleman's involvement in this field. The right hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) was the arch-villain in their abolition. The Government tried to starve the citizens advice bureaux of cash. There was a major war between the national CABs and the Government, before the Government eventually capitulated.
Far from showing a sense of urgency in trying to do something to alleviate the problem, the Government have exacerbated it. Their policies and their starvation of the control system, OFT, and of the enforcement system have led to a greater social need for this sort of immediate loan facility. As I am sure that enforcement officers have told the training standards officers and my right hon. Friend, they also have been under incredible pressure in the past few years.
The people of Bristol, like the people in many parts of the country, will want from the Government not just a recognition that a problem exists but some sign that they are aware of the scale, severity and urgency of the problem, and that they will bring forward proposals to try to eliminate from our society the scourge of loan sharks.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Howard): With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. I join the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) in congratulating the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) on securing this debate. The subject raised by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South is an important one. I share his concern and the concern that has been expressed by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West, from the Opposition Front Bench about the plight of those who fall victim to loan sharks. I entirely endorse his condemnation of the practices that he described. Obviously, many of these practices go well beyond the bounds of legitimate commercial activity and, franky, are criminal.
Successive Governments have recognised the scope for abuse of consumers in the area of moneylending and the


need to adopt special measures to protect some of the most vulnerable members of society in this area. The Moneylenders Act 1900 represented the first attempt to deal with this problem. It provided for the registration of moneylenders and empowered the courts to reopen harsh and unconscionable moneylending transactions. The Moneylenders Act 1927 went further and substituted a system of annual licensing for registration and imposed severe restrictions on methods by which a moneylender could seek business.
These provisions, a licensing system for moneylenders and control over extortionate credit bargains, are among the main elements in the system of control provided by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, with which the right hon. Member for Swansea, West was so closely associated, which replaced the Moneylenders Acts and, of course, went far beyond them in introducing, for the first time, a comprehensive framework of law governing consumer credit lending as a whole. A number of provisions of the Consumer Credit Act are relevant to moneylending, and I believe that, together with other provisions of the criminal law, they provide the necessary powers to deal with the abuses that have been catalogued by the right hon. Member.
The linchpin of the Consumer Credit Act system of control is the licensing system operated by the Director General of Fair Trading. All moneylenders, except those dealing in very small sums, are required to be licensed. In deciding whether to grant a licence, the director general has to have regard to an applicant's fitness and will take into account all relevant circumstances, including past convictions for fraud, dishonesty or violence, contravention of the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act, or related enactments, racial or sexual discrimination or deceitful or oppressive business practices. If an application appears to raise problems under any of those headings, the director general may refuse to grant an application for a licence. Similarly, where a licence has been granted, if the director general becomes aware of conduct by a licensee which he considers casts doubts on his fitness he may, after investigation, revoke the licence. Some 800 licences have been refused or revoked since the licensing system came into operation. I appreciate that that may not sound a great number when set against the total number of around 200,000 consumer credit licences, but, of course, the main value of the licensing system is as a deterrent. The threat of licensing action undoubtedly helps to maintain standards in the industry and the existence of a licensing procedure is likely to deter some unfit individuals from seeking to enter the consumer credit business at all.
It has been suggested by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South that some of the traders whose activities he is concerned about are operating without a licence. Trading while unlicensed is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment. Agreements entered into by an unlicensed trader are also, in general, unenforceable.
In addition to its licensing provisions, the Consumer Credit Act provides other important protection for the customers of moneylenders and other creditors. Like the old Moneylenders Acts, the Consumer Credit Act contains controls over extortionate credit. If a court finds a credit bargain extortionate, it may reopen the agreement so as to do justice between the parties. In deciding whether a credit agreement is extortionate, the court will consider whether

it requires the debtor to make payments that are grossly exorbitant or otherwise grossly contravenes ordinary principles of fair dealing. Of course, everything depends on the facts of the individual case, but I have little doubt that some of the cases to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred could be regarded as extortionate.
The extortionate credit provisions of the Act protect the consumer who has already entered into a credit agreement, but the Act also provides important protection for those entering into credit agreements. Under the Act and its regulations, written agreement must be in a prescribed form, embodying all the terms and conditions in a clear and easily legible form, together with a notice of the rights and duties of both debtor and creditor. The agreement must also contain a prominent warning to the borrower not to sign unless he wishes to be bound by its terms. In addition, both credit agreements and advertisements for credit must contain prescribed information, including the true cost of the credit on offer.
Finally, the Consumer Credit Act contains strict controls over doorstep selling of credit. It is recognised that the consumer may be particularly vulnerable when subject to high-pressure selling techniques in his or her own home. It is an offence under the Act to canvass debtor-creditor agreements or, in everyday language, cash loans, off trade premises. Traders may solicit the entry of an individual into such an agreement only when a written request has been made on a previous occasion. In those cases the consumer also has the benefit of a cooling-off period during which he or she may change his or her mind and cancel the credit agreement without penalty.
In addition to those specific provisions of the Consumer Credit Act, there are many other provisions of the criminal law, which may be relevant in the circumstances described by the right hon. Gentleman, particularly where physical violence or the threat of such violence is involved. Under the Administration of Justice Act 1970, certain forms of harassment of debtors by creditors are unlawful. They would include demands for payment that are calculated to subject the debtor to alarm or distress.
I am sorry to have catalogued the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act at such length, but it is important to demonstrate that there are, indeed, extensive legal controls governing moneylending, and in particular the licensing system administered by the Office of Fair Trading. The right hon. Gentleman has voiced his suspicion that many of the traders to whom he has referred are, in fact, unlicensed. Unlicensed lending is, as I have said, a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment, and I can only urge the right hon. Gentleman to pass on any information relating to trading without a licence to the local trading standards department, which will be prepared to take action when there is sufficient evidence to do so. When moneylenders are under licence, the Office of Fair Trading will be ready to take action if there is evidence that they are indulging in improper or illegitimate business practices.
I do not underestimate the difficulties, to which the right hon. Members for Bistol, South and for Swansea, West referred, in obtaining the information from the people who suffer from these practices so that cirumstances can be drawn to the attention of the trading standards officers or the Office of Fair Trading in appropriate cases. Clearly, it is not easy. Clearly, many of the people who suffer are very reluctant to come forward,


but, with the best will in the world, it is notable that neither right hon. Gentleman came forward with specific proposals on how that problem might be tackled. It is perhaps a sign of the imperfect world in which we live that no system, however admirable, can in practice solve all the problems with which it is intended to deal, if people do not come forward with the information that would enable those who are entrusted with responsibility for enforcing these matters to take appropriate action.

Mr. Michael Cocks: The hon. and learned Gentleman is urging us to draw to the Director General's attention the activities of unlicensed lenders in our areas. But the letter of 5 December 1986 from his Department, of which he has a copy and from which I quoted a passage about not distinguishing between banks, finance houses and so on, continues:
The way in which records are kept here does not make it possible … to break down licences as between different geeographical areas.
How are we even to start deciding which of these people lending money in, say, Bristol, Swansea or Kingswood are licensed if the Director General cannot even tell what is the geographical spread?

Mr. Howard: With respect, the fact that information is not available on a break-down basis between different categories of lenders and between different geographical areas does not mean that it is impossible to determine whether a particular individual or concern is licensed. It is possible to determine that and that is the basis upon which proper enforcement acton can be taken. I agree that it would be desirable—although for rather different reasons — to have information about the categories of licencees as to which business category, geographical area, and so on they come within. That information will become available when the computerisation programme, which is under way in the Office of Fair Trading, is complete. It will have advantages. It is possible at the moment to identify whether a particular individual or firm which is engaged in the practice of money lending is licensed under the Act. If he is not licensed, the trading standards officers are empowered to take action.

Mr. Williams: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for reminding me in some detail of how good a piece of legislation I put through the House in 1974. My recollection is not as favourable. Because the Act and the

powers are there, three other matters are raised — the control system, the enforcement system and the evidence. We have all recognised the difficulty in obtaining evidence, but does not the hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that the starving of the control and the enforcement system has meant that the machinery does not have the time and opportunity to devote to the collection of that evidence that might otherwise be available?

Mr. Howard: No. That would be a justifiable criticism if there were in existence a number of examples where people had come forward with complaints and evidence that had not been properly investigated and properly used as the basis for enforcement proceedings. The difficulty about which the right hon. Member for Bristol, South was eloquent and accurate, is that even when a newspaper gives an offer of anonymity to people who are the victims of these practices, they do not come forward. I regret that every bit as much as the right hon. Gentleman, but until people can be persuaded to come forward no system of law can be administered. If we are to move forward in this area, people will have to be encouraged to make their complaints and bring forward the evidence so that the excellent system of law for which the right hon. Member for Swansea, West bears so much responsibility and can take so much credit can be put into action.
The mere existence of legal controls does not guarantee protection for the consumer. The law has to be enforced. I know that local trading standards departments and, where appropriate, the Office of Fair Trading will be very willing to take action against the kind of abuses described by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South, but they can do so only when there is hard evidence. Such evidence is not always easy to come by and we have exchanged remarks across the House about the difficulty of obtaining that evidence. All that I can do—I am happy to do so from the Dispatch Box—is to encourage people to come forward with the information that will enable action to be taken.
I have no doubt that this debate will be widely reported in the Bristol area. I hope that the reports will encourage those for whom the right hon. Member for Bristol, South is rightly so concerned to bring forward the evidence. I assure the House that any evidence brought forward will be acted upon by the responsible authorities with all due urgency.

Orders of the Day — Prison Service

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a subject of fundamental concern to us all and one that has been of long-standing interest to me. As Members of Parliament who may resent the demands of sitting through the night uncertainly awaiting a debate but who are at least confident in the knowledge that we shall be breaking for Christmas, it is all too easy to overlook the predicament of those whose situation is very different. Those who staff our prisons work through the night as a matter of routine and must be prepared to sacrifice a Christmas break with the family. We all owe a debt of gratitude to those who man vital services over holiday periods so that the rest of us can live in safety and freedom. One thinks of the police, nurses and doctors, and all the others who continue to work throughout the year.
The public's appreciation of those who staff our prisons does not stop there. Many people are aware of the worrying increase in violent crime, of the number of ruthless terrorists in our gaols and of the additional problems resulting from drugs. It is not an easy job, and conditions are far from perfect, with 40 per cent. of prisoners sharing single cells and fewer than half having direct access to a toilet. The present levels of overcrowding are profoundly unsatisfactory. We have nearly 7,000 more people in prison than the total available capacity authorised by the Government. Assaults on staff are reported to have doubled in 18 months and in some prisons violent incidents occur almost daily. Hostage-taking is a background fear, and I well recall wives of prison officers on the Isle of Wight talking of their nervousness whenever their husbands were delayed at work.
There has been a dramatic increase in the number of inmates, rising to almost 50,000 last year—a 7 per cent. increase over the previous year. We send more citizens to prison each year than any other western European country —about one in 250—and it is estimated that there may be a further increase of 25 per cent. by 1994. The Government have embarked on a series of fundamental reforming measures to reduce the crime rate, of which the latest Criminal Justice Bill is a further vital part and the sixth major piece of legislation in six years.
For many years, we have bemoaned the number of prisoners on remand, which is frequently a grave injustice to the individuals involved, quite apart from the burden placed on the prison service, and one hopes that the time limit now imposed for bringing cases to court will bear results. Women are especially and inexplicably vulnerable to imprisonment on remand. In a recent parliamentary answer, my hon. Friend the Minister informed me that, whereas 26 per cent. of female prisoners in prison department establishments were untried or unsentenced on 30 September, the corresponding proportion of male prisoners was only 22·5 per cent. Reconviction rates for women are considerably more favourable than those for men.
We must make further progress on alternatives to custody. The public and, above all, the judiciary's confidence in alternatives will, I hope, lead to a real change in sentencing practice. There can be no justification for filling our prisons with petty criminals or fine defaulters

at vast expense and in the knowledge that their time in gaol is more likely to confirm their criminal career than anything else.
Nearly two thirds of 25-year-old burglars in Britain who have been convicted are sent to prison, but only one third of their victims think that that is appropriate. It costs the state nearly twice as much to imprison a man as to employ him on the average wage, and half of all prisoners are reconvicted within two years of release. There is no doubt that it takes time for the judiciary to have confidence in alternatives to custody. It is only too easy to see a custodial sentence as safe. I well remember sitting with someone who said that, in the public interest, a person must go to a detention centre. I eventually managed to challenge him and say that I was not convinced about what he meant by the public interest. We knew that sending a petty criminal to a detention centre was extremely expensive and resulted in a 70 or 80 per cent. chance of the young man being reconvicted within the next two years.
There has been a significant increase in probation and community service orders, community service orders having risen from about 13,000 to nearly 34,000 between 1979 and 1984. It is now available to all offenders over 16. Other measures to strengthen supervision orders on juveniles involve the intermediate treatment programmes, which are welcome, with intentions to expand detention centres.
There has been a dramatic prison building programme since 1979. However much we extend alernatives to custody, the public expect and deserve to be protected from the serious offender. The party that now urges the Government to increase public expenditure handed over a paltry programme with scant regard to long-term responsibilities. Under Labour, expenditure on prison building and redevelopment decreased by 20 per cent. Under the present Government, it has risen by 173 per cent. Over the seven years of the Conservative Government, expenditure has amounted to £322 million, there being 80 new prisons in the building programme. It is estimated that they will produce more than 8,000 places by the early 1990s, in addition to a further 5,500 places produced as a result of the 25 major capital schemes in existing establishments.
Major investment will also result in about 10,000 existing places having integral sanitation and improvements in staff facilities. A record level of resources is now being devoted to the prison system. For 1986–87, there has been an 8 per cent. increase in expenditure over the previous year—the figure now approaches £700 million. Since 1979, the budget has risen by 85 per cent, which represents an increase of one third in real terms.
The increase in resources has resulted not only in the building programme. The largest component in the prisons budget is staffing. Prisons are labour-intensive institutions and more than 75 per cent. of expenditure goes on staff. Since 1979, the average number of prisoners has risen by 12 per cent. It is not always appreciated that the number of prison officers has increased during the same period by 18 per cent., which raises the staff-prisoner ratio. Last year, 1,000 prison officers were recruited, bringing the total to about 19,000. Those figures are part of a longer trend. The number of prison officers has increased more than six times since 1947 and the prisoner population has increased by substantially less. Whereas the staff-prisoner ratio was about 1:1·7 in 1947, it is now less than 1:2·5. In


addition, there has been a major use of specialist civilian and management staff which means that the figures are even more generous. Whereas only 55 per cent. of the prison budget was the result of staff costs in 1961, today the figure is nearer 76 per cent.
The apparent decline in productivity was mentioned by the May committee. The Home Office justified the numbers by referring to the need for increased security and improvements in the prison regime and in conditions of service of staff. Behind the figures, however, lies a much more worrying situation with an increase in the number of hours worked and insufficient in-service training.
The fundamental concern must be that overtime constitutes an inappropriate part of the working week. It constitutes an average of 30 per cent. of prison officers' earnings. As it is voluntary, some officers work in excess of 20 to 30 hours overtime a week. In a stressful, demanding job, that is an inappropriate commitment to the work. Whereas in 1979–80 the cost of overtime was £34·3 million, it rose 130 per cent. in cash terms by 1985–86 to £81·6 million. Apart from the financial cost of that increase, in management and work terms it cannot be the best way to run a service in the long run.
It is not my intention to rehearse the precipitating factors that led to the industrial action and major disturbances earlier this year. All involved were shocked by the severe repercussions that resulted. It is hardly to be marvelled that prisons, which are enclosed communities, are highly susceptible to stress. The unrest was precipitated when out-of-cell activities and visits were restricted, arising from the overtime ban. It has been estimated that the total damage resulting from the rioting and arson amounted to £4·5 million with 841 gaol places destroyed.
My intention is to focus attention on the fresh start programme introduced by the Home Office this year. Talks with the unions started yesterday. It constitutes a major package of proposals, covering working arrangements for prison officers and management and pay systems in the prison service of England and Wales.
Under the programme existing staff would be permitted to continue to work long hours for up to £15,000 a year, but on a standardised 49-hour week rather than flexible overtime. At present prison officers earn an average of £15,000 for a 56-hour week, but sometimes they may earn up to £25,000 a year for a 70-hour week.
One can appreciate how such figures have become appealing. Certainly compared with the salaries of others in the public sector — although comparisons are frequently invidious — such as nurses, doctors or teachers, who must have higher entry requirements, they seem generous.
Under the fresh start proposals new recruits will be expected to accept the alternative of a basic 39-hour week for just over £10,000. The major task for a fresh start is to ensure that the prison service is brought under proper managerial control. To resist change cannot now be in the long-term interests of the service.
There has been growing public awareness and outrage about the restrictive practices, rigid attendance system and excessive overtime arrangements of the service. It is not only the implications of those matters for the service, but the needs of prisoners who can too easily be overlooked under such a system.
The proposals include changed working arrangements, new flexible shift systems, a new approach to complementing, a unified career structure and a switch to

a professional salaried status. The creation of a more open promotion system with a greater attempt to integrate the uniformed officers who undertake the day-to-day running of the prisons and the governors is welcome. A single line of command and promotion should result in improved and more effective management.
I support the steps towards unification of the service, believing that the previous system is outdated. It will be important, however, to ensure that graduates continue to join the service and that the "fast stream" arrangements are sufficiently attractive. It is vital that the management structures are enhanced so that there can be greater accountability, more devolution and control of budgets and a coherent chain of command to the governor.
The service has already been working with management accountants to develop greater cost control in prisons, but there is still a long way to go. The onus is now very much on the Prison Officers Association to engage in negotiations and constructive discussions about the need for change. That amounts to a cultural as much as an organisational change. In the past, the association has too often demonstrated a defensivness and a lack of openness about its work in response to challenge or criticism.
The trade unions exist to represent their members, but it must be highlighted that four fifths of the prison population are prisoners rather than officers. Despite the dramatic increase in staffing, many prisoners still have little or nothing to do all day. Too many have limited access to work, education or association and spend many hours locked in their cells. The figures are hard to establish, but there are signs that in many areas the position has deteriorated.
A major factor in the suggested decline in opportunities for prisoners is reported to be the unavailability of prison officers to escort prisoners to and from work and in some cases to supervise workshops alongside instructors.
Prison education has suffered similarly. Too easily it comes towards the bottom of the hierachy of priorities when officers are allocated for duties. As a result, many classes for which there is budgetary provision cannot take place. Many prisoners complain of restrictions on visiting and interference with the frequency of clothing changes. A review of staffing practices and a re-evaluation of priorities could substantially improve the position, especially for prisoners who are not security risks.
I hope that we shall move from a review of man management in the prison service to the long overdue establishment of a general code of practice and standards in prisons. For many years there have been calls for a code of standards and we need a way in which priorities can be allocated and success can be judged. We must provide a measure of how well we are doing according to our goals.
Part of any useful code of practice would refer to physical requirements and also to the desired goals in terms of the quality of the inmates' experience. For example, it is all very well specifying the number of baths or showers, but we should also specify how often they should be used. Similarly, changes of clothing, visiting arrangements and time out of cell all need to be highlighted. Essentially, to judge the performance, we must have agreed yardsticks not just in terms of man management but in terms of goals for the inmates.
There is growing public awareness and debate about the need for reform. There is also concurrently a groundswell of opinion arguing that wherever the state has a monopoly of provision the result is an inefficient, high-cost service


orientated towards the needs of the producers rather the needs of the consumers. Clearly, in the prisons, the development of performance indicators is more complex than in many other areas of provision. The goal of imprisonment has always been a debate upon a multifaceted issue involving containment — isolating the offender from the community; rehabilitation—imprisoning the inmate for the purpose of treatment of inappropriate behaviour or training new skills; deterrence — the ability of prison sentences to deter either the offender or potential offenders; and retribution—using a prison sentence as an expression of the public's refusal to tolerate criminal behaviour.
Finding effective measures presents particular challenges. There is a need to evaluate work in the service in the light of its objectives, no matter how hard they are to identify.
In the light of the vast sums of money spent on the prison service and the difficulty of achieving the form of cost savings and enhanced efficiency emerging in other sectors of the economy more forcefully exposed to financial and market considerations, there is mounting pressure to follow the American example and move towards privatising prisons or at least contracting out some services or prisoners. That is no longer a controversial idea raised only by those with a powerful even all-consuming ideological commitment to market forces. It has been raised by a broader band of supporters concerned as much about difficulty of establishing change and improved conditions for our prisoners in the gaols as obtaining value for money or efficiency. Clearly any such move requires great political diplomacy and many lessons can be learned from the French example.
The Economist argued last week that it is time to start privatising some British prisons. Its headline encapsulated many people's reservations:
Prudes about profit keep prisoners in filth.
We should not react in too defensive a fashion. Private prisons and prisons for profit have a long history in the penal system of Great Britain. Prisons were expected to be self-supporting and to obtain their revenue from fees exacted from the prisoners in medieval times. Gaol keepers, who were usually appointed by the sheriffs, took the job, not out of a sense of duty but to make a profit. The prisoners were expected to pay an admission fee on entering gaol and a release fee. The fees were adjusted according to the prisoner's social rank and ranged from £10 for an archbishop, duke or duchess to 13s. 4d. for a yeoman and nothing for a poor man. The discharge fee ranged from 35s. down to 7s. 4d. for a yeoman or a poor man. In addition, prisoners were expected to pay for all daily necessities such as bedding, fuel, food and even at times, water.
As prisons were essentially business enterprises, the office of the keeper was transferable or inheritable like any other property. The wardenship of the Fleet prison was leased at £40 a year in 1490. Even the system of transportation of prisoners to the American colonies and the system of confinement on the hulks was a matter of contract management.
We all await the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs on its recent visit to America and look forward to hearing the results of the new Minister of State's visit. In America, where there is a prison

population 10 times the size of ours, many steps have been taken to use the private sector. A number of prisons have been handed over, locks, bars and cells, to specialist companies of which the Corrections Corporation of America is one of the largest. That arose at a time when the American authorities were worried about overcrowding, poor conditions and escalating costs. Some are involved purely for profit, others as a social responsibility gesture or out of philanthropic motivation.
Clearly there would be many steps involved, including the establishment of a national code for minimum standards but there is, I believe, widespread interest in the idea of increasingly contracting out services or some groups of prisoners.
There can be no question of society relinquishing control altogether. Effective monitoring would be essential and, indeed, some have argued that it might easily result in more effective control than the management has been able to establish in recent years in the public sector. It is arguably the case that the state will always have to maintain responsibility for top security prisoners.
In the area in which I have most experience, juvenile crime, there have been many remarkable pioneering projects from the independent sector which are cost-effective and socially useful. Those, in my experience, have been undertaken by non-profit making organisations but there is no doubt that the enthusiasm, commitment and willingness to experiment with new working practices and ideas would, in my view, sadly be almost impossible to achieve in the state sector.
The Junction project at Waterloo was an early and remarkable scheme acting as an alternative to custody for young serious delinquents, financed by Save the Children Fund. The Church of England Children's Society's tracking project in Coventry is another example.
In my constituency the Alternative Probation project, once again a non-profit organisation, provides a remarkable service to those on the brink of a long-term criminal career. We have other examples in the area of probation hostels and elsewhere.
This is an appropriate time for the debate. The long-awaited talks between the unions and management on the Fresh Start proposals open today, in parliamentary terms —yesterday in real terms. Those proposals should result in a more effective, better-managed service with better use of the available manpower so that those employed in this vital and often dangerous work receive a fair return for their efforts.
I appreciate the opportunity provided by the debate to draw attention to this too easily overlooked group of people. We have 47,790 inmates in our gaols in some 122 penal establishments staffed by 19,000 uniformed officers. Too often, that group of people when out of sight is also out of mind.

Mr. Clive Soley: With the leave of the House, I wish to make three brief points about this important issue. I welcome the interest of the hon. Lady the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) in this subject and some of the ideas to which she has referred, but it is a fundamental mistake to believe that, because there has been a 12 per cent. increase in the prison population, the number of prisons and prison officers should also be increased. The hon. Lady acknowledged that the number of prisoners must be reduced. This


Government have failed to address the crime prevention issue. Only when they do so will something be done about the number of prisoners in our gaols.
I welcome the ideas that underlie Fresh Start. I have argued for many years that the prison officers must be professionals. The Labour party's policy is to move rapidly towards a six-month training period for all prison officers, with the aim of eventually introducing a two-year training period. That kind of training period is needed if prison officers are to do a professional job. That is why I have doubts about the scheme.
My first doubt relates to training. Unless the Government recognise the need for good, long-term training, prison officers will not become professionals. At a meeting a few days ago in Lord Caithness's office with a number of his civil servants I was told that they accept that the training issue must be addressed.
Secondly, I am not sure that the Government will be able to introduce the scheme if they do not increase the amount of money that is needed to implement it. I understood that it would be a nil cost scheme. If that is so, I suspect that the negotiations will founder.
My third, and by far my most important, point is that I do not believe that fresh start will work unless the Government are able dramatically to reduce the number of prisoners. The Home Office must decide whether it wants to use the powers in the Criminal Justice Act 1982 relating to executive release. The Home Office has never said when it intends to use those powers, or why it would use them. The suggestion has been made that they would be used only during an industrial dispute, but we know that the Home Office has thought of using them because of the overcrowding in our prisons.
I have already said that I should prefer a conditional release scheme, because it is fairer and makes much more sense to the public. It could apply to non-violent offenders who do not pose a risk to the public. The Government put the 1982 Act on the statute book and have provided themselves with the power to use executive release. If they combined it with increased training, together with additional resources to finance the scheme, it could work. If the Government made a real contribution to change in the prison service, they would have our support.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): The great joy one always feels, Mr. Speaker, at the opportunity to address the House at 7.38 am is greatly enhanced by your presence in the Chair, looking far more bright-eyed and bushy-tailed than is entirely appropriate at such an hour.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) for making his points briefly and cogently. I know that he will forgive me if I do not go down all the interesting highways along which he would take me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) gave a virtuoso performance. It was an extremely well-informed speech. She showed a mastery of the relevant statistics which highlighted her undoubted concern about aspects of the prison service. At the same time she commended the Government for their very real efforts in trying to come to terms with the historic neglect of our prison estate.
I particularly welcome the commendation which my hon. Friend made in clear and detailed terms. I congratulate her on her understanding of the issues

involved in the fresh start proposals. Such was the authority of my hon. Friend's contribution and the extent to which I agreed with it that I am in the happy position of not having to respond at any great length.
I join my hon. Friend in commending the fresh start programme, which is intended to provide the foundation and framework for the prison service of the future. It is a major package of proposals for change in the working arrangements for prison officers and revised managment and pay systems for the prison service throughout England and Wales.
As my hon. Friend said, the package has its genesis in mounting concern about the problems which have beset the service for so many years — internal division and dispute, overtime dependence, inflexible organisational structures and working systems and impoverished regimes.
My hon. Friend set out the catalogue of problems and difficulties that face the service and it is a key element in everyone working together to try to deal with those that they should be widely understood. Indeed, I know that some of the solutions of the hon. Member for Hammersmith would not appeal to us, but I think that he, too, would agree with much of what she said about the difficulties and would also accept in a fair-minded way that those problems have their roots in a soil far deeper than when the Government came to power in 1979.
The formidable catalogue of problems requires no further elucidation from me, but it would be helpful if I said a little more about the fresh start programme. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hammersmith for responding positively to the programme. His ideas about the training element will be taken seriously. He might like to dilate on those in great detail so that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State who is responsible for these matters might have an opportunity to take them on board. This is not a partisan issue. Rather it is one of which we all want to try to take advantage. The more people who appreciate the need for the fresh start, the better we shall be able to devise a prison service where resources are applied in the most efficient manner.
As my hon. Friend said, the three main areas that the fresh start programme covers are working arrangements, management structure and pay and conditions of service. They are the first integrated attempt to tackle the difficulties. The proposals for work organisation envisage the introduction of group working. That means that in future staff will work in teams grouped round the needs of the work. Shift systems will be designed flexibly within a set of common principles to match the work needs. New complementing systems are being designed to ensure that individual prisons and the service as a whole are properly manned, taking account of the needs of security and staff safety. So far as possible, the new arrangements will seek to insulate internal prison regimes from the demands of the external, particularly the court commitment.
We published a consultative document this week on the court commitment and whether it is a proper use of prison officers' time and, indeed, court time, that remands should take place on quite as regular a basis as they do at the moment, when no substantial progress is possible with the case. I understand that that is a controversial issue, on which I shall be given the opportunity to dilate on the radio a little later. We are not committed to change, but we do think that the case for change is a formidable one


and we are asking for comments upon it. It would bring great benefit to the prison service if such a change were to be implemented.
The group working proposals are intended to improve collaboration and flexibility in the exercise of responsibility. These in turn should improve the way in which the work is done and the satisfaction gained by staff from doing it well. The keynote in our approach to improved management structures is unification. Revised structures, unification of the governor and prison officers grade, along with the reduction in the number of those grades from 10 to eight, will help to end divisiveness and clarify who is responsible for what and to whom.
It is our intention to review the management structure of individual prisons at the same time as the group working concept is introduced. In that way, roles, responsibilities and lines of accountability will be clarified and, in turn, clarity of structure will help to ensure effective communication up and down the management chain and between groups across the structure.
We propose new salary pay arrangements to give prison officers a simple, fair and guaranteed pay system. The intention behind this proposal is for prison officers to be paid a monthly salary and for all the allowances currently being paid separately, except London weighting, to be taken into account in fixing an enhanced basic pay.
Prison officers will work a conditioned 39-hour-week and, in addition, they can contract to work 10 extra hours, making 49 in all, for an extra allowance. This contrasts with the present position where officers work a 40-hour conditioned week and average 16 hours overtime per week per officer. With the amalgamation of the grade structures, new entrant prison officers will in future have the same pension arrangements as governor grades, but existing officers will keep their present entitlement and there will be transitional arrangements generally designed to protect the interests of those in the grades to be amalgamated.
A tremendous amount of thought and care has gone into drawing up the package of proposals that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West have described. On the one hand, of course, we must ensure that

the service is offered a fair and balanced deal, but on the other hand we must make some radical changes if the professionalism of the service is to be developed and the quality of prison life improved. Inevitably, of course, such changes will always bring in train some problems and we do not underestimate the stresses and strains of getting from where we are now to the better and more positive service which we envisage for the future. The effort that will be needed to implement the new proposals will be well worth while. The benefits in them for all are as follows. For staff there is the prospect of reduced hours, both conditioned and average, along with predictable attendance patterns. On the pay front there is increased basic pay and guaranteed earnings for a guaranteed number of hours. With group working, staff should see improved job continuity and job satisfaction. For management the arrangements will provide a better match between resources and work needs. The systems will be more responsive to changing pressures, demands and needs and we should see greater efficiency, improved accountability and more effective control. For inmates, whose interests were of course well set out by my hon. Friend and echoed by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, the package provides an opportunity to improve regimes by laying down a sound organisational basis from which to work towards the enhanced delivery of regime programmes. Finally, we must not forget the public, which stands to benefit by getting much better value for money and an even more professional prison service.
On 21 November we put detailed offers to the Prison Officers Association and other prison service trade unions. They cover the proposals which I have briefly enumerated today, and include a fair offer on pay which should give a prison officer who chooses to work 10 additional hours a guaranteed pay of £15,000 per annum. That is the top rate. Discussions with the unions are now under way and we are looking for a speedy and agreed outcome. If these proposals can be agreed, they hold out the prospect of a better life for prison officers and prisoners. Without them, we have grave doubts whether it would be possible to pay for the improvements in prisoner care and staff job satisfaction that we all agree the service so desperately needs.

Orders of the Day — Central America

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: As part of the Consolidated Fund debate I wish to discuss the question of British relations with and policy on central America. That matter has been raised many times in the House. I wish, first, to outline what I believe to be the very serious nature of the conflict within the central American region and then to go into some exploratory questions with the Minster about British policy in the region.
Much publicity has been given over the past few years to what is happening in central America. Most of it surrounds the revolution in Nicaragua and its many achievements, and also the war in El Salvador. Perhaps less publicity than should have been given has been given to the appalling human rights position in Guatemala over the years and the fundamental instability of the political position of much of that region. More recently the news about the secret sale by the United States of arms to Iran and the suspected laundering of the money through banks in Switzerland and Israel back to central America has been given a great deal of publicity. It is interesting to note that the Contadora leaders claim that the money that LieutCol. Oliver North was supposed to be secretly and illegally laundering and supplying to them in central America never reached them.
The House should concentrate on the fundamental nature of the dispute in central America. It is not a basically poor area, nor is it infertile. It has fertile soil and it is rich in a variety of raw materials, yet within the area live the poorest people in the world. Anyone who has seen the subsistence level at which many of the Camasinos in Honduras are forced to live will begin to realise that that is true.
When the region achieved its independence from Spain many decades ago in the last century, the raw materials were taken over either by the landowners or by foreign-owned multinational companies. For that reason, there is a warped process of economic development and all the countries in the region subside further and further into debt, military dictatorship, and multi-national domination of their economies.
In the case of Nicaragua, the Sandinista movement, which is based on the life of Sandino, a hero of the country in the 1920s and 1930s, fought a long struggle against the dictatorship of General Samosa and finally achieved power in 1979. Since that time Nicaragua has seen tremendous achievements, but it has made them against the background of the most terrifying odds and international repression. Disputes there have an international connection and British policy towards the region was ostensibly one of support for the Contadora peace process. However, British policy is little more than following the bidding of the United States at every turn.
Perhaps I could quote from a written answer given by the Minister for Overseas Development on 4 December. When I asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonweath Affairs
how much aid has gone to (i) Nicaragua, (ii) Honduras and (iii) El Salvador in (a) 1984, (b) 1985, (c) 1986 and (d) 1987, projected,
I was told:
The latest available figures for gross British bilateral aid on a calendar year basis are as follows:




1984 £
1985 £


(i) Nicaragua
9,000
116,000


(ii) Honduras
3,446,000
3,653,000


(iii) El Salvador
205,000
103,000"


—[Official Report, 4 December 1986; Vol. 106, c. 721.]
It must be said that none of those figures is large, but, if one studies the figures for 1979 and before, one sees that there has been a considerable reduction in aid to Nicaragua to the point where there is now virtually none. At the same time, there has been a considerable increase in aid to El Salvador and to Honduras. That is an indication of the direction in which the Government's foreign policy thinking is going.
Within the region, the Governments have come together through the so-called Contadora process and continually sought and negotiated a peaceful settlement of the conflict in central America. Our Government, together with EEC Governments, claim to support this process, but the voting record of our Government at the United Nations seems to show that at best they managed to abstain and at worst they seemed to manage to vote largely with the United States in a minority with a small number of countries. EEC loans offered to the region and EEC discussions in the region seem to be continually hampered by the attitude and activities of the British and West German Governments who are more interested in following the policy of the United States on the region than a policy that would lead to real peace and self-determination for the people in central America.
In Nicaragua other British connections have to be raised, but they have to be raised in the context of what is happening there. Nicaragua is a poor country that is striving to pull itself out of a morass of debt and underdevelopment and having to borrow large sums of money on the international market in order to aid itself.
Since 1979 Nicaragua has had very little in the way of overseas aid from any Western countries. It has had some assistance from Cuba and the Soviet Union, but little from elsewhere. Because it has had so little aid, the development programmes of the Government have been severely hampered. Nevertheless, the campaign against illiteracy in Nicaragua achieved a UNESCO prize as being a model for the rest of the world, and the development of the health service is quite remarkable. It is a moving experience to see doctors, nurses and auxiliaries doing their best in very bad conditions in hospitals in Nicaragua to bring a health service to people who have never known a health service before. Likewise, the education service, the various training schemes and the growth in employment in the country as a whole.
What is appalling is that in Managua and other places one sees the victims of the war—the people displaced because of the Contras attacks in the northern and southern regions of the country. What is also appalling is the suffering in those regions and the way that the Contras, armed and financed by the United States, and United States-backed organisations, continually pick specifically on the products of the revolution, destroying health centres, killing nurses and doctors as they go about their business in that region.
It is an evil, and I wish the rest of the world to know about it. The Contras are the remnants—that is the only way to describe them—of the private guard of General Somoza up until 1979. They are an evil force that


is financed with very expensive and sophisticated weaponry to go about their death and destruction. Here is a book, published by the Washington office on Latin America, entitled, "Nicaragua: The Human Tragedy of the War." This catalogues just three months of the war between April and June this year. I will quote virtually at random. Here is one particular case:
"Kidnapping; Attempted Murder of Civilian
June 21, 1986. Near Nacazcol, Jinotega. Around 8:00 p.m., Eucebio Herrera Blandon, 28, was taken from his house by about 19 contras, who originally identified themselves as Sandinista Army troops (17). Eucebio recognized two of them: Alejandro Palacios, who had been a member of Somoza's National Guard, and Raul Blandon, 19, who himself had been kidnapped the previous year (18). Raul begged "El Terror," the leader, to let his cousin Eucebio go and was threatened with death (19).
Along with Eucebio, the contras kidnapped his two uncles, Cesario Rizo Blandon, 64, whom they murdered, and Fermin Blandon, whom they released. Eucebio believes that they released Fermin because he was not involved in any cooperative, while the attempt to murder him (Eucebio) was made because he was the president of a cooperative (20).
Eucebio spend one night tied; the following evening, the attempt to murder him was made:
They told me to lie down on the ground, and a man whose name is Chevo stabbed me with a knife. He stabbed me 12 times: 3 times in the heart, the rest in the chest and neck.
They did this to me at 6:30. They left me for dead, covered with branches. (21)
But Eucebio survived, although he required surgery on his heart and had to spend seventeen days in the hospital (22).
That is a horrifying story of what happened in one small village in Jinotega. The book chronicles the details of what happened to other people throughout the country, especially in areas where the Contras have been particularly active. The links that the Contras have are worldwide and go very deep.
Two weeks ago a conference was held by the Contras in the Barbican conference centre in London. That conference was hosted by prominent members of the Federation of Conservative Students—one of whom is employed by this House. That organisation is nothing more than a bunch of mercenaries who are trying to destroy a Government who put themselves up for election only two years ago and won those elections quite substantially. In every sense of the word it is a democratically elected Government which has diplomatic relations with most countries in the world, including Britain, the Soviet Union, the United States and most European countries.
The links that the Contras have, and their freedom to organise elsewhere, come not because of the justice of their cause or because of any skills or organisation, but solely from the money that they have been given by the United States and others. The June 1985 issue of Searchlight chronicles the links between European Nazis and the Contra movement. It states:
Nazis in Britain and France are at the centre of a secret operation recruiting mercenaries to fight alongside right-wing 'contras' trying to overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. The involvement of American mercenaries with the CIA-backed 'contras' has been known for some time, and the newly uncovered role of British and other European 'dogs of war' is also being co-ordinated through right-wing circles in the United States. The presence of Britons in the 'contra' camps along Nicaragua's borders first came to light in late April when two were arrested by police in Costa Rica. Since then investigations have revealed that their recruitment is

being organised through European chapters of the World Anti Communism League, using known Nazis as recruiting agents.
It goes on to explain the links between European Nazis and the Contras as they go about their business.
It is correct to ask the British Government exactly what their policy is towards the Contras in Nicaragua. The Government have diplomatic relations with the Government of Nicaragua. We support the Contadora process—at least, that is what the Government say—yet at the same time the Contras are allowed to organise freely and openly in Britain, with a conference being held in London, supported by members of the Conservative party. It is organising in a way that has been condemned as illegal by the International Court of Justice. Nicaragua sought a judgment against the United States for the violation of its national territory and the undeclared war that is going on against Nicaragua. Because of that court decision, one would have thought that the United States should stand condemned in the eyes of the world. Tragically, the British Government have still redused to condemn the United States for its continued violation of the independence and freedom of Nicaragua. It is perfectly reasonable to ask exactly where the British Government stand on this matter.
There are other ramifications. The use of Honduras and Costa Rica as a springboard to attack the Government of Nicaragua is well known, but it must be fully understood. What is happening in the region is more than just a war against Nicaragua for the United States. It has a regional strategy to it. Honduras, the poorest country in the region, has been heavily under the influence of the presence of American troops year after year. Each year, the United States organises larger and better exercises in Honduras. Each time, they leave more and more equipment behind, and each time more airfields are built. Each time, more radar equipment is left behind. Honduras is being used as an aircraft carrier, and from Honduras planes fly in and out of Nicaragua, trying to drop supplies to the Contras there, to be used against the Government and people of Nicaragua. It is perfectly reasonable to ask what the British Government's policy is.
What is also interesting is that the bases in Honduras are also being used to fly in and out of El Salvador, where the civil war has been continuing for some years. An article in The Independent of Saturday 13 December by Chris Norton, who is a respected correspondent who lives in San Salvador, states:
President Duarte still officially refuses to acknowledge the Contra supply flights which operated out of San Salvador's Ilopango airport
—a military airport just outside San Salvador. It appears that those flights, including the one that was shot down in Nicaragua, were carried out without the knowledge of the president of El Salvador; the knowledge was kept from him by the military and the American embassy because they thought that it was not necessary for him to know it.
Events in Nicaragua and in El Salvador are linked by the United States' determination to destroy the Government of Nicaragua and to impose on El Salvador a Government in the mould that they would wish. At the moment they are headed by Presiden Duarte, but one wonders how long he will last before the United States embassy finds someone more to its liking in the region.
El Salvador has some geographical similarities with Nicaragua. It has many poor people. Those who work in the coffee industry are paid appalling wages. It has


landless peasants who travel around the country looking for work. As a result of the civil war, a fifth of the population are either internal or external refugees. That was before the tragic earthquake in the autumn.
The tragedy of El Salvador is compounded by the economic strategy of the Duarte Government, which is to spend all American aid on the military and cut spending on social matters such as social security, health, housing and hospitals. The contradictions of that strategy have led to the horrors of the war, with the Vietnam-style methods that are used in the mountainous areas of El Salvador, and the most appalling poverty in the urban areas. Above all, it has led to the activities of the death squads and the murdering of so many innocent people in El Salvador itself. It is estimated that more than 50,000 have been killed by the illegal acts of bandits over the past five years. The violation of human rights is not quite on the scale that prevailed in 1981 and 1982 but it is still extremely serious.
It is incumbent on the British Government to consider their policy towards the region. Nicaragua is condemned, in the words of the Foreign Office briefing, for being a Marxist dictatorship, but it has held free elections and there is freedom of expression and of religious assembly and worship. There have been great achievements, despite all the difficulties. An election was held in El Salvador, which many considered to be fraudulent, yet it had the blessing of the British Government. Indeed, the British Government continue to bless the Government of El Salvador. To prove how much they bless that Government, they have undertaken the military training of one officer of the El Salvadorean army. One 19-year-old officer is undergoing language training, after which he is apparently to attend a military college in Britain.
I ask in all conscience whether the British Government can claim to be neutral in the region? Can they claim to be supporting the Contadora process for negotiated peace in Nicaragua while at the same time supporting United States policy in every avenue of the world and offering military help and advice to the Government of El Salvador? The training of one officer might be seen as a small beginning, but it is a serious departure when we involve ourselves in the training of an army with such an appalling human rights record, which rates it among the worst armies throughout Latin America. Additionally, we seem to be keen on giving aid to the country.
The memories of those who have fought for human rights in El Salvador, trade union organisation and dignity, are being stamped upon by the United States, now with the approval of the British Government. I have the Congress papers of Fenastras, one of the major trade union federations of El Salvador. On the front cover is a moving picture of Maria Elsy Marquez, the secretary of the candy and pasta workers, who disappeared in 1981. She is one of the thousands who have been murdered in El Salvador for standing up for working-class interests, for human rights and fundamental decency. She, together with Archbishop Oscar Rameiros and so many others, has stood up for a civilised form of government in El Salvador, yet it seems that the British Government are more interested in providing military aid than in bringing real peace to the region.
When peace talks have taken place—they have been called by the FMLN and one set of talks has taken place—they have broken down continually. I do not believe that there can be any peace in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala or any other countries in the region

without, first, the end of United States aggression against the progressive movement throughout the region. Nor can there be peace without social justice. The basis of the region's problem lies in the poverty of the poorest, who live in the Campucino areas and in the shanty towns around the capital cities of the region. The British Government could play a role in this region, but they choose not to do so.
I should like to emphasise the point that I made earlier about the losses that people have suffered in El Salvador. I have visited the country three times in the past three years. Each time, I have been moved by the way in which the people cope, in the midst of all that suffering and all these losses. I hardly met a working-class or peasant family who had not lost somebody to the death squads or to the army, or who had just disappeared. Yet they still go on. they are still determined to achieve something better for their country and their lives.
I have a list of people who have disappeared or have illegally been killed over the past two years. It is a fat document. It is produced by the Committee of Mothers of the Disappeared, the camadres, the CODEFAM and the church group on human rights in El Salvador. They are admirable organisations that deserve our support and help.
The final matter to which I wish to refer before I address one or two general points to the Minister relates to our policy on Belize and Guatemala. Belize achieved its independence in the normal way in which it was achieved in many countries in the Caribbean, and a mutual defence agreement was made with Britain. There is a British base in Belize that apparently costs about £33 million a year to run. What is going on in that base is unclear. On 8 December 1986, I asked the Secretary of State for Defence
what non-United Kingdom forces have had use of British facilities in Belize over the past three years".
The answer was:
British facilities are used by the Belize defence force. So far as other foreign forces are concerned, records are available only for the last two years. In September 1986, both the BDF and British Forces Belize hosted a troop from the Bermuda Regiment during a two-week joint exercise. In February 1986, a sports team of US service men from Panama visited the BDF and BFB. United States observers were invited to witness joint BDF/BFB exercises in January 1985, January 1986 and July 1986."—[Official Report, 8 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 88.]
There is a base in Belize. It is certainly looked at enviously by CONDEMDEC countries within that region, which have an enormous training facility of their own— Honduras—and, no doubt would like to have the use of that base area and training grounds in Belize. Was the American sports team visiting? What was it doing there? Is it normal for American sports teams to fly to what is supposed to be an obscure base in Belize, or is it something that shows a much closer relationship between British military activity in the region and the United States than we have hitherto believed?
Relations between Belize and Guatemala have been enormously difficult. I understand that negotiations are continuing between the new Governments in both countries. Guatemala has not entirely renounced its claim on Belize, yet the British Government have renewed diplomatic relations with Guatemala and are supporting the civilian Government of Guatemala. Will the Minister tell us what the current state of relations is between the


British Government and Guatemala, what is the attitude towards that base in Belize and whether any other countries have the use of it.
The area of central America is one of enormous poverty. The crucial point about it is that, to get out of that poverty, it requires assistance, aid and trade. It does not require the constant harassment and the presence of thousands and thousands of American troops and American money that will destroy any process to bring social justice to that region. The British Government have had ample opportunities in the past not to go around the world as the poodle of President Reagan and agree with everything that he does, but to stand up for human rights and the self-determination rights of the people within that region.
I hope that the British Government will recognise that the sordid, nasty tale of the sale of arms to Iran, the attempted laundering of money back to the Contras in central America, the illegal war that has been going on in Nicaragua, and President Reagan's obsession with destroying the Nicaraguan revolution is dangerous to the rest of the world.
We should recognise the legitimate wishes, aspirations and determinations of people throughout that region. I hope that in future the British Government will take a role independent of the United States and genuinely seek to improve our aid to Nicaragua, and to the poorest people in one of the poorer regions of the world. I hope that they will recognise that all the delegations—from the Church, trade unions, political parties and others—that have gone to the region have come back with fundamentally the same message: that the United States is trying to destroy the progressive and social movement in the region. The British Government are seen by the poorest people throughout the region as very much a part of the process of the United States' destruction of their rights.
I eagerly await the Minister's response. I sincerely hope that he will condemn the United States' aggression against Nicaragua and support the decision of the International Court of Justice, which has also condemned that. He should recognise that Nicaragua has a perfect right to take Honduras and Costa Rica also to the world court for violation of its national borders. There should be a change of direction of the British Government's policy so that we resume aid to Nicaragua in a real sense. We look to a future that does not allow millions of people to be confined to a life of misery, poverty and starvation in refugee camps in the region.

Mr. George Foulkes: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on getting this debate, and on his patience in waiting until this hour to make his speech. I congratulate him also on his comments, with which I completely concur. I am only sorry that I missed the first few minutes of his speech, due to logistic reasons that I am sure the Minister will understand.
I shall refer first to the Caribbean part of central America, which I am sure that the Minister will be able to deal with. Labour Members have contributed recently towards a bipartisan policy on several areas. That is why I am doubly disappointed at the Government's double-dealing, particularly recently on central America. The

Minister should know what I am talking about. With regard to the Turks and Caicos, will the Minister bring the House up to date on the progress of that constitutional commission? Both sides of the House wish that dependent territory to get back to an elected legislature as soon as possible. We understand the problems that there have been, but I hope that Sir Roy Marshall's constitutional commission will make progress. When does the Minister expect to report to the House on that? Therefore, when can we expect the return to an elected Government in the Turks and Caicos?
I shall refer to only one other country in the Caribbean before coming to central America, the main subject of the debate—I refer to Grenada. I do not condone in any way any crimes that have been committed by those who have been found guilty, particularly Phyllis and Bernard Coard, but I hope that the Government will make representations to Grenada to the effect that leniency should be shown in relation to the death penalty. The Opposition would find it intolerable if, in a Commonwealth country, when a great deal of concern has been expressed about the judicial process, the people who have been found guilty in the first part of the judicial process were to be executed.
That brings me to central America and the main thrust of my hon. Friend's speech. He mentioned Belize. I had the opportunity recently to visit the base there. That is another area in which the policy of the House is bi-partisan. We support the base there. I gave an assurance to the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Belize that when the Labour party wins power at the next election in the United Kingdom, we shall continue that base as long as it is required by the Government there.
Of course, we hope that there will be an agreement between Belize and Guatemala that will allow us to phase out our presence and allow the Belize defence force to take over any remaining responsibility. I am impressed by the way in which the Belize defence force is developing and by the assistance that the British forces are giving to it.
The British forces assisted during four crises—in Jamaica, Mexico and El Salvador, dealing with natural disasters, and in Colombia. As for sending helicopters to Colombia, not only was the truth contrary to reports on BBC television, but those reports were scurrilously repeated by the chairman of the Conservative party after they had been corrected by the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office. The chairman of the Conservative party went on to repeat what was known to be a lie. The helicopters were allowed by the Nicaraguan forces not only to land in Managua but to refuel. Refuelling occurred not without some difficulty.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to stop the hon. Member. I hope that I did not hear him say that he accused the chairman of the Conservative party of lying. The hon. Member should rephrase his point. He must not accuse an hon. Member of repeating a lie.

Mr. Foulkes: It is important to spell out that the BBC report on television said that the Government of Nicaragua had refused to allow British helicopters to land on their way to the disaster in Colombia. That was not the case. The Nicaraguan Government not only had allowed the helicopters to land but had refuelled them. Both the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence corrected that in written statements in the House. Nevertheless, about a


couple of weeks later, the chairman of the Conservative party, a Member of this House, repeated what was clearly an incorrect statement on the BBC. That shows his irresponsibility. Labour Members are aware of that, but not everyone outside the House might be.

Mr. Corbyn: We should televise Parliament.

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is right. Then we could see the truth.

Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that, during the earthquake crisis in El Salvador, Nicaragua sent an aeroplane load of medical aid and equipment to assist in the recovery?

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. I hope that the British Government will encourage the Government of Guatemala, now that we have established consular relations, to start detailed discussions with the Government of Belize about the dispute between the two countries so that it can be resolved. President Cerezo has said a number of times that he wants these discussions to take place. As I found out recently, the Foreign Minister in Guatemala is a little reluctant to get down to detailed discussion and negotiation. I hope that our Government will do what they can to encourage those discussions. The sooner that normal understanding exists between Belize and Guatemala, the better, not just for that area but in general.
I shall deal briefly with the two main countries, to give the Minister an opportunity to speak. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, I had the opportunity to visit El Salvador and to talk to people on all sides of the argument. I spoke to a number of Ministers, including the Defence Minister. That is why I want to make a point, which my hon. Friend made, about the training of one soldier from the El Salvadorean army in the United Kingdom. The Minister may shrug his shoulders, but people feel strongly about this matter. When I was in El Salvador, it was clear from the Defence Minister's attitude that the Government of El Salvador see this as recognition that everything is OK in that country. As I know from the reports which I have read of the position in El Salvador, although, as my hon. Friend generously said, there have been some improvements in that country, there is still repression and persecution. While that continues we should not be giving the kind of recognition represented by training that officer. To suggest, as the Government have, that that one officer will go back and change the whole nature and ethos of the armed forces there is utterly ridiculous when one sees the kind of forces that they are and the things that they have done. It is tokenism and it is taken in the wrong way in El Salvador.
I also call upon the Government to be active in supporting the dialogue which, as my hon. Friend rightly said, the Government of El Salvador have broken off on a number of occasions. Unless we can get a positive, meaningful dialogue going between Government and rebels in El Salvador, there will never be progress towards peace in that country. I hope that the Minister will indicate his support for that today.
The most important country, not just in itself but for its significance outside its boundaries, is Nicaragua. I am not uncritical of aspects of the policy of the Government of Nicaragua. No member of the Opposition is. We are not uncritical of many aspects of British Government policy

either, as I regularly make clear. Nor are we uncritical of United States Government policy. I must say, however, that when I make representations to the Government of Nicaragua on behalf of the Opposition I find a greater willingness to take account of those representations and to do something about them than I find with the British Government or the United States Government.
The Government of Nicaragua were elected in free and fair elections, as the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), who was an observer there, will confirm. They have made great progress with literacy and health, but they are also achieving one of the most difficult things for any country to achieve. The transition from a revolutionary situation in which they overthrew a dictator who was supported by the United States to a pluralist democracy within a few years is no easy task. Conservative Members here and, above all, the White House, the National Security Commission and the State Department in the United States should recognise that. It is intolerable that during that successful transition the Nicaraguans have been subjected to continual aggression from the United States—psychological aggression in which, as the leaked documents showed, the British Government collaborated—economic aggression and, above all, military aggression. One recalls the mining of ports and the bombing of the Corinto supply depot and one is aware of the support given to the Contras.
The most recent revelations about the American Government make it imperative that the British Government dissociate themselves from all that the Americans are doing. To their total discredit, the British Government have not yet done that. The International Court of Justice has made a ruling. The Foreign Office accepts that court as the highest court in the world, as we do. We should be telling the Americans to accept its rulings. In the face of that ruling, however, the United States Government have not merely continued to support the Contras, they have increased their support for the Contras, making them the biggest contributor in the world to state-sponsored terrorism. If they claim to condemn state-sponsored terrorism, they should condemn this instance of it.
The revelations about the Iran-Nicaragua connection with money being channelled through Switzerland to the Contras is the most despicable example of the underhand way in which American Administration have been operating in relation to this issue. For the Government to continue to say that they support Contadora while continuing this kind of action is hypocrisy. It is merely paying lip service to Contadora.
Representatives of the Federation of Conservative Students have gone to Costa Rica to fight with the Contras. We saw the article, "Conservative with a Kalashnikov" in The Guardian and asked Ministers to condemn that student. They refused to do so. I asked the chairman of the Conservative party to condemn it. He also refused. We can understand that he would find that difficult, but I should have thought that the Minister would condemn it.
Two weeks ago—I feel extremely bitter about this—there was a conference in the United Kingdom at which Arturo Cruz, a leader of the Contras and an advocate of terrorism, spoke. It was attended by many Conservative students and, in spite of an assurance from the Minister,


a representative of the Foreign Office attended. I am told that it was a mistake. It is not my experience that Foreign Office representatives go to such meetings by mistake.
On 24 November, a diplomat from the mission in San Jose attended a meeting there. We know that Arturo Cruz and other leaders at that United Nicaraguan Opposition conference were planning, with the support of the Americans, and especially Elliot Abrahams, the establisment of an alternative Government in Nicaragua. I know that because I have spoken to people who have testified to that effect.
British Government representatives were present at meetings when plans to undermine an elected Government with which we have diplomatic relations were laid. That is intolerable. These terrorists are killing women and children and other civilians, as we see from the report in "America's Watch" from the Washington Office on Latin America. Dreadful torture, maiming and murder is taking place. It is now paid for by the American taxpayer and supported, unless it is denounced today, by the Government. Unless the Minister condemns it unequivocally today, he will confirm that the Government are party to it. We say that such terrorism must stop and we shall continue to criticise it. We ask the Government to join us in that criticism.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): I join the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) in congratulating the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on his success in the ballot and on being successful at a reasonable time in the morning, although the debate started a little too early for the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley.
The debate has understandably tended to concentrate on Nicaragua and central America, but I should like to comment first on other matters. I welcome strongly what the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley said about the British garrison in Belize. I assure the hon. Member for Islington, North, who raised the potentially sinister aspects of sporting contacts between the United States military team and the United Kingdom base, that he should not read into that more than there is. He also asserted that we have established diplomatic relations with Guatemala. That is not so. We have merely established consular relations. Discussions about further progress continue.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley asked for an update on the Turks and Caicos Islands. I appreciate the bipartisan approach that has developed. The commission continues to sit. We hope to have its report early in the new year, but we cannot predict whether elections will flow from it automatically because we do not know what it contains, but I shall keep the hon. Gentleman informed.
With regard to Grenada, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the result of the trial, especially as there could be an appeal.
Both hon. Gentlemen raised the subject of the voting record in the United Nations on Nicaragua. We were one

of 46 countries which abstained on the General Assembly resolution, so the impression they gave that we were in a minority of one does not stand up.
I find it frustrating that we spend a great deal of time in the House talking about central America, in particular Nicaragua. Obviously, despite all our efforts, we have not been able to dispel the misconceptions about the Government's policies. The woodworm seems to be fully integrated in the minds of Opposition Members.
I reaffirm that the Government are convinced that a political resolution remains essential for the restoration of peace and stability in central America. We do not consider that the problems of the region can be resolved by force and we have consistently urged restraint on all sides. That is why the Government, together with their European partners, have expressed full support for the efforts of the Contadora group to promote a resolution of the problem there through regional multilateral negotiation. We want to see, and have supported practically, a comprehensive, verifiable, simultaneously implemented agreement on the basis of the Contadora objectives agreed by all five central American countries in September 1983. Although no such agreement has yet been signed, we shall continue to support the efforts to sign it and to demonstrate practically that support with our European partners.
As hon. Gentlemen know, the basic plank of our policy is support for the Contadora process. The 21 objectives drawn up and agreed by all the Contadora and central American states have gained widespread international support and hon. Gentlemen are familiar with those objectives. We work closely with our European partners in our effort to support that process and we demonstrate practically our support for a move towards a peaceful resolution of conflicts in the area. That was evidenced at the Luxembourg meeting and by our commitment of assistance to the region.

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Eggar: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall continue, because other hon. Members wish to participate.

Mr. Foulkes: I want the Minister to make it explicit that the Government's support for Contadora and a peaceful solution means that he condemns the aggression by the Contras which is completely inconsistent with Contadora.

Mr. Eggar: We have consistently said that we support a political resolution of the problems of central America, and the hon. Gentleman is well aware of that.
As the hon. Member for Islington, North said, the countries of central America do not fall into the category of the poorest in United Nations terms. Therefore, they are not necessarily the first recipients on a worldwide basis of development aid. Our aid is intended as an active support for the efforts of the Contadora group.
We also try to assist with the humanitarian problems of the region. We have responded positively to appeals for humanitarian relief work in the region. Last financial year we contributed over £600,000 to appeals by the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for work in the region. So far this year we have contributed an additional £250,000. In March we made available £100,000 to the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development in El Salvador.


We have also contributed more than £500,000 in emergency relief in the aftermath of the earthquake in El Salvador.
Hon. Gentlemen have made remarks about the level of our aid to Nicaragua. One cannot overlook the fact that Nicaragua received over 50 per cent. of European Community aid to central America between 1980 and 1984 and that Britain's contribution and percentage of the EC aid budget was slightly over 20 per cent. There has been a considerable commitment of resources indirectly to Nicaragua.
The hon. Member for Islington, North added to the general misinformed criticism of our offer to train a Salvadorean military cadet. We do not consider that exposing a young Salvadorean army cadet to the professional standards and methods of the British Army can be interpreted as condoning human rights abuses. Indeed, we very much hope that he will take back to El Salvador an idea of the values that govern the activities of our armed forces. All four Contadora group countries currently trying to negotiate a comprehensive settlement to the problems of central America, as well as some of our European partners, extend military training facilities to the Salvadoreans. The offer of military training to one young cadet must be seen in the wider context of our aid programme to El Salvador.
I was surprised at the Opposition's criticisms of our assistance to El Salvador. The total assistance is limited and designed to acknowledge and encourage the substantial progress that President Duarte's Government have made particularly on human rights. That progress has been recognised by most international observers, and I detected a grudging recognition of it by Opposition Members. I note with interest the fact that the Opposition rarely decide to criticise the more serious abuse of human rights in Afghanistan or Kampuchea. The motive of their criticism of El Salvador is not clear.
I want now to consider the remarks made about the Contra conferences in London on 6 and 7 December and that in San José on 24 November. I want to reaffirm and reiterate that there was no question of any official Government support for those conferences. A junior member of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office attended the conference at the Barbican but did so on her own initiative. I explained in writing to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley that when I answered his question I was not aware that the official concerned had attended the conference. Had I known, I would not have given the hon. Gentleman the answer that I provided.
Opposition Members would be wrong to read more into the matter than the simple facts permit. Neither the holding of the conference nor the attendance of an official detracts in any way from the Government's commitment to a political rather than a military solution of the problems of central America.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Eggar: As Opposition Members are aware, it is fundamental to a democratic society that individuals and groups be allowed to lobby freely on behalf of their political and other aims provided that their activities remain within the law. I am surprised that Opposition Members are so committed to the restriction of free speech when the message behind that free speech happens to be something with which they do not agree.
The hon. Member for Islington, North described the Contras' representative as a member of the Somoza private guard. However, Dr. Arturo Cruz, the Contra leader who spoke at the conference, is first and foremost a politician. He stood against Ortega in the 1984 presidential elections in Nicaragua. The hon. Gentleman should get that into perspective.
The meeting of the Contra leaders in San José was clearly intended as a political meeting, otherwise the Costa Rican Government would not have permitted it to take place in their capital. In fact, to emphasise their commitment to neutrality, the Costa Rican Government refused a visa to a Contra leader as he was considered to be a military rather than a political figure. The member of the British embassy who attended the conference did so as an observer as part of his normal duties of obtaining information and reporting to us on developments in the area. Before Opposition Members raise too much fuss about that, I stress that there were present observers from many other western countries and also Latin American parliamentarians including some from three member countries of the Contadora group.
Allegations that the meeting of the Contras in San José, which was attended by our diplomat, was secret are entirely without foundation. Of course, Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials at home and abroad have a duty to keep Ministers fully informed of developments in the areas of their responsibility. Therefore, they need to keep in contact with a wide variety of groups. Such contact does not necessarily imply any form of recognition or support. Labour Members should not read more into the facts than is present on the surface.
I should like to end on a positive note. I referred earlier to the difficulties currently encountered by the Contadora process. I also referred to our intention to continue supporting the efforts of the Contadora group to resolve the problems of central America. In February next year, the third meeting of the San José dialogue will take place. The Foreign Ministers of the European Community, the central American states and the Contadora group states will meet in Guatemala City to fulfil the commitment undertaken at Luxembourg. We and our European partners see that meeting as a reaffirmation of our support for peace, democracy and economic development in the region. We see it as a positive contribution in an area of significant tensions. I am sure that the meeting, at least, will be supported by Opposition Front Bench Members.

Orders of the Day — Aircraft (Falling Objects)

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Richmond and Barnes is a lovely part of south-west London, as almost everybody would agree. One of the things that has ruined the area for some of the residents, as I have mentioned every year and in my maiden speech, is aircraft noise. In fact, since becoming a resident of Barnes I have been woken up more often than not in the early morning by aircraft noise.
Unfortunately, there is another side effect of the aircraft industry. Three weeks ago, in the middle of the constituency in Mortlake, there was an extremely bad accident. A British Telecom employee had a narrow escape when a large chunk of ice, apparently the size of a football, crashed through the roof of a bicycle shed just outside the Mortlake telephone exchange. Some people may find that sort of incident comical, especially since the evidence disappears quickly. However, only a few minutes before the accident one of the employees, Mr. Thomas Ash, had been standing exactly under the place where the ice crashed through. It draws our attention to the fact that on many occasions over the past few years items have fallen from aircraft and, naturally, the places that suffer most are directly under flight paths.
Since 1980 the Heathrow airport consultative committee has been corresponding with the Department of Transport, and before that the Department of Trade and Industry, trying to pursue its request for the Government to introduce a scheme to insure members of the public against death or injury and damage to property caused by objects falling from aircraft. All of those requests have been rejected.
The Heathrow airport consultative committee has the support of the six other consultative committees and many independent United Kingdom consultative committees such as Bristol, East Midlands, Manchester, Southampton and Cardiff. Three hon. Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), have written, as I have, to the Minister to ask for a scheme of compensation or insurance.
It may be that the Government consider, as they have in the past, that such a scheme is not justified. That decision would be based on the claim that the number of reported occurrences of objects falling from aircraft are very small, that legal liability rests with the operator of the aircraft that causes the damage or the injury and, in the few instances where the aircraft is untraceable, financial compensation can be obtained from the normal household and personal accident insurance policies.
I have studied carefully the incidents of over the past seven years. Indeed, when the Minister wrote to me recently he stated that there had been 90 incidents of items falling from aircraft in the past few years. If one studies the information carefully one can see how dangerous such things are. In 1983–84 there were 16 ice falls from aircraft. What are the problems? Seven of the 10 aircraft were foreign registered. Although in some of those cases the aircraft was contacted, in other cases the aircraft that had

had an ice fall could not be seen. An international aircraft that is flying high over this country may have an ice fall, but that aircraft will not be seen.
In 1983–84 the luggage door separated from an aircraft over Richmond and, unknown to the crew, it crashed to the ground. In the same year an aircraft caused a 12 inch by 18 inch hole in a roof. In another incident ice fell on a house, narrowly missing a child. The Civil Aviation Authority's statistics demonstrated that items very often fall to the ground in Richmond, narrowly missing individuals.
A frequent argument is that householders are protected by their house insurance policies. But that is not always so. Some insurance companies do not provide insurance of that kind. A lady who lives locally suffered £600 worth of damage to her property but was unable to claim compensation. Corrrosive substances from aircraft also fall on to people's property. In Richmond, corrosive substances fell on to a house and on to the pavement and caused burns that lasted for 10 days after the incident.
Apart from the 1983–84 statistics, there have been extremely bad years for accidents. The Gatwick airport consultative committee mentioned that between 1 July 1982 and 30 June 1983 there were 44 reported incidents, three of which related directly to Gatwick. A lump of ice that fell from an incoming aircraft missed a bungalow by only 6 ft. The ice hit a tree and ripped off a branch. One wonders what harm that might have done to an individual.
My plea is supported by organisations that support the Heathrow airport consultative committee. Hillingdon borough council, Hounslow borough council, Spelthorne borough council, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire county councils, Slough corporation, the Association of British Travel Agents, the London Tourist Board, the International Air Transport Association, the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the National Chamber of Trade, even the Trades Union Congress, the Consumers' Association and many other voluntary environmental and amenity groups agree with me. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport will say that, instead of a national compensation scheme for these rare incidents, individuals should be encouraged to take out insurance. I do not agree.
The British Insurance Association states that in many cases it is not possible to identify the aircraft from which an object has fallen, even if it is clear that there is a direct claim against the operator of the aircraft. Nevertheless, the BIA says that it is up to individual householders to take out such insurance as they consider would cover the risk to their house, if various items were to fall on it. The BIA states that most policies cover the risk of damage by aircraft or other aerial devices. Therefore those who are inside a house at the time of a fall might be protected. Those who are travelling in cars at the time of a fall might also be protected. However, the BIA states that although comprehensive motor insurance policies would cover an accident caused by items falling from an aeroplane, those with third party or third party, fire and theft insurance cover would not be compensated if there were such an accident. In a letter that it wrote in 1985 the BIA said that:
Personal accident and life assurance policies, like comprehensive motor insurance policies, would not specifically refer to aircraft but would cover such a claim, since they provide insurance in respect of accidental bodily injury and death respectively.


Either one has to be in a house or in a car, and comprehensively insured, or one has to have a personal accident policy to obtain a just result for what could be a severe injury. A child who is injured while in a playing field may not be able to make any claim on an insurance policy. An individual walking in the open might well not be covered.
The British Insurance Association states that the estimate, which is difficult to make, of those who carry personal accident insurance is unlikely to exceed 15 per cent. Therefore, 85 per cent. of people are uncovered when out in the open air.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look at the matter urgently. It is inequitable that people who suffer death, injury or damage should have to undergo the trouble and expense of legal action to try to obtain compensation, often from a foreign airline or one that is unidentifiable. Ice particles cannot be used in evidence because they disappear.
If the cost of the cover is so small, the Government could easily administer a small fund from which compensation could be paid without creating awkward precedents. At the very least I ask the Government to urge insurance companies to carry the risk and to give prominent advertising to personal accident policies because the more people take them up, the lower the cost.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) has dones his constituents a great service by raising this matter. Like his, my speech will be rather truncated.
My hon. Friend is concerned as a result of an ice fall a few weeks ago at Mortlake. It has now been established that the ice was probably due to a lavatory leakage. The CAA is examining its radar tapes to see whether it can establish which aircraft might have been involved.
Under section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 the owner of an aircraft has absolute and unlimited liability for loss or damage suffered by a person or property on the ground and caused by an aircraft or object falling from it.
I had meant to deal with the matter in some detail, but my hon. Friend will forgive me if I am unable to. I understand that he is particularly referring to ice falls. On the rare occasion when any part falls it usually can be identified. Indeed, the operators are only too pleased to sort the matter out because it is in their interests to do so. Ice falls present a greater problem for the reason that my hon. Friend mentioned. Because of the difficulties that several hon Members have mentioned from time to time

—indeed, my hon. Friend has just mentioned them himself—airport consultative committees have argued for a Government compensation scheme. We have looked at that matter and have concluded that there is no overwhelming justification for setting up a compensation scheme.
Where an aircraft part is concerned, the aircraft can often be traced and its owner held liable in the way that I have mentioned for damage or injury caused. To set up a Government compensation scheme for falling objects would establish a major precedent. One could ask why should the Government not then set up schemes to compensate people for damage or injury caused by other types of activity—falling trees, slates from roofs, and so on.
Most normal household and personal accident insurance policies provide cover against damage to property or personal injury suffered because of objects falling from aircraft. That means that where the aircraft in question cannot be traced, anyone affected by a falling object should be able to make a claim under his insurance. It is precisely because of the ease with which such risks can be insured that the Government have consistently argued that there is no need for a Government compensation scheme. There can be no justification for creating what would have to be an elaborate scheme to investigate, assess and pay out a small number of claims each year when suitable resources and expertise are already available on the commercial market.
We do not think that it is the function of Government to substitute for the insurance companies. It is the job of Government to make certain that there are adequate arrangements for ensuring as far as possible that ice or parts of aircraft do not fall from aircraft.
In Britain that task falls to the Civil Aviation Authority. However, that having been said, the House will have listened with interest to what my hon. Friend said about the need to advertise what insurance is available and, if insurance companies are not providing such cover, to try, as far as possible, to encourage insurance companies to do so. It is our firm belief that most normal household policies have this cover. We shall certainly do anything that we can do to advertise the comments of my hon. Friend on this matter. I am sure that hon. Members will have listened to what he said about the need to insure. With that qualification, I take that point very much on board. The only answer I can give is that we cannot set up a compensation fund.

It being Nine o'clock am on Tuesday, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — Low Pay (West Yorkshire)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]

9 am

Mr. Max Madden: This morning, throughout west Yorkshire men and women have gone to low-paid jobs. Today, throughout west Yorkshire men and women will go into local jobcentres desperately searching for work. It is a matter of serious concern that a disturbing number of the jobs advertised in the 21 jobcentres in west Yorkshire are for jobs with rates of pay which are below the statutory legal minimum. It is clear that the Government are colluding with unscrupulous employers to break the law on minimum pay, for, although the Government have cut the number of wages inspectors they employ to enforce legal minimum pay, the Government employment service is advertising jobs at less than the statutory minimum. The victims are thousands of men and women working in shops, restaurants, hotels, pubs, cafes, hairdressing, textiles and clothing and at home.
We know about the problems of low pay, because west Yorkshire has the worst low pay record of all nine main urban regions in Britain. Wages council minimum rates for adult workers range from £70 for clothing workers to £80·50 for workers in non-food shops. Men and women earning £1·50 to £2 an hour know only too well that there are only eight shopping days to Christmas, because they are at their wits' end trying to provide for their families and are desperately worried about how they will pay their rates, gas bills, electricity bills, water bills, and all the other bills that come tumbling through the letter box at the beginning of every year.
I propose to quote extensively from a report entitled "Low Pay Centres" by Steve Winyard and Maggie Hunt of the west Yorkshire low pay unit which surveyed jobs advertised at rates as low as 80p an hour—for a part-time taxi controller in Huddersfield, and others below the legal minimum set by wages councils. The report says:
At the time of the survey in August the national average wage for men was just over £210 and for women just under £140. Very few of the jobs advertised in the wages council sector offered the prospect of earnings anywhere near these levels. Most were paying wages of between £70 and £85 per week or £1·75–£2·21 per hour. There were one or two examples that went below £50 per week. However, before looking in detail at this sector, we should refer to the jobs in the 'miscellaneous services' category that are not covered by a minimum wage.
These were the very worst paid vacancies in August. At the very bottom of the pile was this vacancy advertised at the Huddersfield Jobcentre:
'Part-time Controller, Huddersfield Town Centre, 80p per hour, hours to be arranged, will involve evening and weekend work. Working on radio message control, directing taxis and taking information. Experienced person preferred. Must be conversant with the Huddersfield area …'
Many of the job advertisements for a 'nanny' were also offering rates of pay well below £1 per hour, even after an allowance is added for food and accommodation. The following advertisement from the Leeds Jobcentre was one of the worst paid
'Nanny (live in), Headingley, £25. Live in all found. Three children 7, 5 and 2. Experience preferred. Involved in home life 18+'
A large number of low paid job advertisements were for vacancies in the rapidly growing sector of 'private welfare'. Old people's homes, nursing homes and private hospitals were

all advertising for domestic and care staff with wages in the region of £1·50–£1·70 per hour. These pay rates are significantly below those paid in the public sector. …
'Part-time Cook, Bradford 9, £1·70 per hour, Mon-Fri 9.00–12.00. To work in a residential home for the elderly. Will prepare lunches for approximately 20 people 18+ …
Many of the Jobcentres had vacancies for general cleaning work and the most common rates of pay were between £1·50–£1·70 per hour. …
'Part-time cleaner, Brookfoot, £1·55 per hour, 6 pm-8 pm Mon-Fri. Required for general office cleaning i.e., vacuuming, dusting, emptying bins, cleaning toilets. Must be fit, active and reliable …
Low Pay Unit studies in other parts of the country have shown that security guards are not only very low paid, but also face long and unsocial hours …
'Static Guards. Wakefield area. £1·50 per hour. 6.00 pm—6.00 am. Usually some day work including weekends. Will patrol premises/sites to check security. Previous experience, own transport and phone required. Should be able to provide 2 references.'
With hourly rates of pay in the region of £1·50, a security guard will have to work over 80 hours a week to earn above the Council of Europe's decency threshold for wages. Such hours are not uncommon in the industry however, as the Dewsbury job advertisement indicates. Five or six night shifts plus some day work is often expected by the cowboy employers in this industry …
Finally there were also some very low paid jobs being advertised in the 'leisure industries' …
'Arcade Operative. Brighouse. £1·63 per hour. Tues. Thurs. Fri. and Sat. 11–6. Mon. 11–3. Full-time person to assists in the running of an amusement arcade. Some cleaning duties,…'
The report says about workers covered by wages councils:
Wages Council Orders are extremely complex and the minimum rate can vary according to experience, type of work done, the nature of the firm's business and, even how many tables there are in a fish and chips shop! In a number of cases the details on the job card were not adequate to permit a precise calculation. However often the wages offered were so low that no matter what assumptions are made it is clear that a firm is illegally underpaying … Focusing firstly on bar staff, there were many advertisements in the Jobcentres offering hourly rates below the LNR wages council minimum (£1·91 per hour for workers aged 21 and over). £1·80 per hour was frequently mentioned for part-time staff …
'Bar/cellar person, Cottingley. £1·80. Split shifts 39 hours. Experienced bar person to work split duties. To do cellar work bottling up in the mornings and general bar duties. Must be smart and presentable. Will be required to cover for functions and weekend work.
That job is estimated to be underpaying at the rate of £4·40 per week.
The report says:
The lowest rates of pay were being offered for vacancies in cafes and restaurants. The following advertisement for a cook in a cafe is 33p per hour below the minimum set by the UPR council for an 'assistant cook' (£2·03 per hour). Someone taking this job would be underpaid by nearly £9 for the three days worked.
There are also examples of vacancies for shop workers in which advertisements were for paying below the wages council minimum:
Part-time shop assistant, Leeds 12, £1·84 per hour. 10–1, Monday to Friday. To work in a small supermarket serving meat, also preparing sandwiches and filling shelves. Experience strongly preferred. Must be mature and reliable.
There are also examples of jobs in clothing and textiles which were being advertised at below the council minimum. The report says:
The clothing manufacturing wages council covers work in the manufacture and alteration of most types of clothing. At the time of the survey the minimum rate for a 39 hour week was £70, representing an hourly rate of £1·79, with pieceworkers guaranteed at least the same rate as timeworkers. A disturbingly high proportion of clothing


vacancies advertised in the jobcentres gave no details of wage rates; pay was 'negotiable', 'to be discussed' or 'piece rates'. Even so a considerable number of advertisements were found to be offering illegally low rates of pay".
The report continues:
Well below the legal minimum was the following advertisement for homeworkers which appeared in the Otley Jobcentre: 'Machinists (outworkers). Home area. Piece rate of £1·40 per hour. Work as and when you like in your own time. Experienced through machinist required to make up children's garments for home'.
There were also examples of hairdressing jobs paying below the minimum. I quote:
Part time stylist. Keighley. £1·71. Tuesday 1–5. Wednesday to Friday 9–5. Saturday 9–3. Fully qualified ladies hairdresser to do settings, cutting, perming, etc. Must be fully qualified and experienced.
I have referred to the difficulties of workers in getting clear information about the rates of pay for any job that they intend to undertake. It is important that the Government take positive action in this respect and several others that I shall mention.
All employers who wish to advertise jobs at jobcentres should provide a written declaration stating whether the vacancy that they wish to advertise is covered by a wages council and, if it is, that it meets all the requirements of the current wages order. Such a move could be introduced voluntarily and, if necessary, backed by legislation. There should be more trained jobcentre staff with easy access to the latest pay rates so that all vacancies are checked on a routine basis. The difficulty is that there have been cuts in staff at jobcentres and they do not have access to up-to-date sets of wages orders. Indeed, some years ago the Manpower Services Commission decided to withdraw copies of time rates of wages and hours of work from jobcentres, making it even more difficult for the staff to be able to check whether the vacancies meet the legal minimum pay rate requirements.
Full information about the wages councils system should be displayed in all jobcentres, including minimum rates. In Sheffield, each job card says whether the vacancy is covered by a wages council; if it is, it shows the minimum rates that apply to that job. If it can be done in Sheffield, I see no reason why it cannot be done in other jobcentres in west Yorkshire and indeed in other centres throughout the country.
There should be more outdoor wages inspectors properly supported by indoor staff in west Yorkshire where, as a result of cuts in the number of wages inspectors, firms can expect to be visited only once in every 14 years. That is a scandal, and there should be an immediate increase in the number of outdoor wages inspectors so that firms can be visited more regularly and action can be taken by the Government.
We are all aware of the fiddles that the Government have carried through since they were elected in 1979. They have fiddled the unemployment figures to get people off the register, and almost at any cost. There has recently been much controversy over the questionnaire that the Government introduced deliberately to push people off the unemployment register and to suspend them from benefit if they refused to accept work. I believe that the Government have an obligation, having introduced the questionnaire, to ensure that all workers who are desperately seeking work have clear information about job vacancies and the pay rates that apply to them.
The scourge of low pay in west Yorkshire inflicts stress and misery on thousands of men and women in full-time

employment and their families. Low pay imposes a considerable burden on local community services in my county. Low pay hits the local economy of west Yorkshire. It depresses demand for goods and services because low-paid workers lack spending power. Firms in west Yorkshire face lack of demand and reduced business stability as a result of competition that is based on wage undercutting. Despite what Tory Ministers say, low pay does not lead to the creation of jobs or job security. Low pay causes major social and economic problems in west Yorkshire.
That is why, in a recent survey, an overwhelming majority of people in west Yorkshire came out in favour of a national minimum wage to combat low pay in all occupations. One of those who was questioned said:
Something must be done to end low pay. It is absolutely slave labour for many workers today.
That is the view of many of my constituents and many other men and women throughout west Yorkshire. They are extremely concerned about the extent of poverty and the appallingly low pay that they are offered for the work which is available. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will say that he can take positive action in response to the reasonable and modest recommendations made by those who prepared the report to which I have referred. If he can do so, his assurances will be very welcome.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Trippier): There is no argument but that some people's wages are low, and it would be desirable if they could be increased. The Government recognise that there is a low-pay problem in west Yorkshire, as there is in other parts of the country. We are concerned that an unfortunate minority are not able fully to share in the prosperity of our society. Where the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and I differ is over how the problem can be solved.
The hon. Member talked about wages councils and gave me the impression—he may not have wanted to do this—that it was almost as if the Government had decided to do away with the councils and did not recognise their importance. The Government recognised that there was a need to retain wages councils for the protection of minimum rates of pay which obtain in industries that are covered by the wages council orders, with the exception of workers under 21 years of age. We thought it right and fair that we should give younger people the opportunity to put their foot on the first and important rung of the employment ladder.
I could have done with the hon. Member being a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Wages Bill. As he would imagine, I was involved with that Committee for a few months. I was waiting for an Opposition Member to refer to the fact that the wages council orders were extremely complicated. The hon. Gentleman was fair when he told the House that in some instances it was difficult—I think that I have transcribed his words correctly—to calculate the various rates and minimum rates because of the number of tables in a cafe. It was extremely difficult. The hon. Gentleman placed me in a difficult position because the report that has constantly been referred to in the debate is out of date, for the simple reason that the Wages Bill, which is now an Act


of Parliament, has streamlined wages councils orders and simplified all the different rates of pay. I think that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.
The Government have said that there must be a minimum wage to ease the confusion not only among employers but employees—a point that the hon. Gentleman seemed to be prepared to concede. That is the major reason why we have cut the number of inspectors.
On the level of compliance within Yorkshire and Humberside, 90 per cent. of the workers employed in the wages councils industries are not underpaid. Twenty-five per cent. of establishments were found to be underpaying but in those cases only one or two workers were actually underpaid. It has always been the Government's argument that, because there was so much confusion about the wages councils orders because they were so complicated, one could be forgiven in many cases—not all, I concede—for thinking that the employers could get it wrong and the employees would not perhaps have the natural form of redress because they would not understand the complicated wages councils orders. We have put that right.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the advertising in jobcentres of wages covered by the wages councils orders that still exist, although in simplified form. It would be wrong and foolish for me to rubbish his proposal out of hand. Obviously, I had no idea of what he would say in the debate. It is true that some vacancies have been advertised at below the legal minimum rate. I still maintain, at the risk of hammering the nails out of sight, that it is mainly because of difficulties, not only for jobcentre staff but for employers, in interpreting the orders because they were so complicated.
I understand that in the hon. Gentleman's region the local director of the Manpower Services Commission is already discussing the matter with the Low Pay Unit. As a result of the debate, I shall take a personal interest in those discussions and make sure that the hon. Gentleman's recommendation is considered fully. I shall ask also for the result of the discussions to be brought to my attention.
If the Government are saying, on the one hand, that we are now simplifying the wages councils orders so that everyone can understand them, it seems a little difficult, I concede, for even staff of the MSC in local jobcentres not to be able to understand them now that we have taken this action. The hon. Gentleman did not say that it should be mandatory, but it may be that we should consider whether a person advertising a job in a Wages Council industry should be required to sign a piece of paper or something to show that he is complying with the order. I shall look at the matter. I do not make any promises. The hon. Gentleman put that point very firmly. That is the end of the good news.
Because of the differences between Her Majesty's Opposition and Her Majesty's Government, it is important that we make absolutely clear what the dividing line is. I am suspicious of any attempts to exaggerate the number of low-paid workers through using misleading or inappropriate definitions. I do not believe that there is any purpose in defining low pay in relative terms, such as two-thirds of average earnings. It is clearly wrong to inflate the estimate of the number of low-paid workers through including young people and part-time workers. Also, like should be compared with like. Basic pay rates should not be compared with the level of average earnings. But more

importantly, if low pay is defined as a relative concept, no matter how we increase the standard of living of all our people, low pay will always be an issue.
An absolute level of pay is also inappropriate, especially if we try to link low pay with poverty. A low-paid worker may be part of a household with a large total income and so enjoying a high standard of living. Conversely, someone on a relatively high wage may, because of family circumstances, enjoy a relatively low standard of living. What Opposition Members should be doing, instead of producing misleading statistics on the number of low-paid workers, is thinking about constructive proposals to help the low paid. I shall try to deal specifically with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman about the minimum wage.
It is surely self-evident that the level of real pay in this country depends upon what we can produce and upon what we can sell. Real pay and increased standards of living for all our citizens can be improved only by improving our economic performance. There are no easy or simple solutions. It may not be palatable, but it is true to say that to increase wealth, and so increase absolute pay and, at the same time, improve job prospects, entails keeping inflation down and improving productivity and competitiveness. There are no short cuts—as Opposition Members appear to believe—to a permanent improvement in the position of the low paid. The improvement in the standard of living for those who are poorly paid depends crucially upon the general improvement in our economic performance.
That the standard of living of the low paid depends upon improved economic performance can be seen in the position of the low paid in west Yorkshire. We do not want to enter into the Wars of the Roses. Although I might believe that the hon. Gentleman was on the wrong side of the barbed wire dividing his county from mine, at least we stand shoulder to shoulder in not having to change money at Watford. We are concerned about the people in the north. As the hon. Gentleman would imagine, I am familiar with his part of the world. I visited it officially only a few weeks ago. That was my umpteenth visit in the past few years.
I am aware that in those areas in west Yorkshire, the jobs to which the hon. Gentleman refers are concentrated on the more traditional industries. Unfortunately, the employment structure of the area includes a proportionately large number of such industries, as is the case in my part of east Lancashire. Only when those industries become more profitable and their employees more skilled will they be able to pay higher wages without risking jobs. Any attempt to force those industries to pay higher wages through Government action—be it a minimum wage or anything else—will not help the thousands of low-paid workers who will consequently lose their jobs.
Since coming to office we have consistently followed policies to improve our economic performance. Those policies take a while to become effective and are now bearing fruit. Output has grown by 14 per cent. since 1980 and productivity by 17 per cent. in the past few years we have experienced a faster rate of output growth than any other EEC country. In the 1970s, under a Labour Government, our rate of output growth was among the lowest.
However, there can be no grounds for complacency, especially about our rate of increase of earnings and unit wage costs. Unfortunately, earnings in Britain are still


growing faster than in other major countries—7·5 per cent. in Britain but only 1·5 per cent. in the United States and in West Germany. Because of this, our unit wage costs are rising more rapidly and we are losing competitiveness.
Compare the increase in the take-home pay of low-paid workers since we came to office with the prospect of what is likely to happen if the Labour party should return to office. The proposals of Labour members—I am referring not just to the speech of the hon. Member for Bradford, West about the minimum wage but to his colleagues' speeches—will lead to an increase in public expenditure of £28 billion. How can that be financed? There is only one answer—by additional taxation. The Labour party's proposals are equivalent to an increase in the basic rate of tax to 53p in the pound, or an increase in VAT to 43 per cent.
Low-paid workers should look closely at these false promises and should remember that they will be paid for

with their money. Labour Members promise to help the low-paid. But, to pay for their promises to other groups, the low-paid will suffer a fall in take-home pay and a lower standard of living. On top of this, Labour's policies will lead to higher inflation, which will also quickly erode the real living standards of the low-paid.
The policies of the Labour party will wipe out all the gains in take-home pay which the low-paid have made since we came to office. It is not possible to increase public expenditure and at the same time increase the take-home pay of the low-paid. I expect that the interests of the low-paid will once again be sacrificed to finance the political dogma of increased public expenditure—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Nine o'clock am on Tuesday.